I dunno, I think Rise: Blood Hunter may be worth a look just on the basis of the topless inverted chicks alone. You just don't see enough of that in movies anymore.

Also, that Amazon site you linked us to shows some sources of used copies for as low as 77 cents. That's something else you don't come across very often.

Thanks for the detailed review and caps.

-------

I haven't decided if Today's Pic is showing the kid's older sister dressed up like a maid, or if it is, in fact, the maid.

In any case, the plump babysitter is sweating next to the fireplace on what looks like the kind of cart hotels use when you order dinner from room service.

So I'm guessing they intend to cook and eat her.

Nice fall colors in the picture.

-------

I thought Barbara Crampton did a fine job in the Re-Animator scene, As I watched I couldn't help thinking: You just don't see that many movies showing women strapped to operating tables anymore. There must be one or two hundred scenes like this in older movies (not as many with the nudity, of course).

I'm wondering whether anyone else out there likes mad-scientist-with-captive-woman-bound-to-operating-table scenes. If so, what are your favorites?

Here's one that I like, from Mill of the Stone Women.

The movie was made in the chaste, ancient 1960s. But it was made in Europe, and if you look closely, you'll catch a nice nip slip about 14 seconds into it. The heavy breathing is cool too.

Some call them pigtails,,,,,,,,,,,

Some call them Blow Job Handles,,,,,,,

Now I will most assuredly go to hell.

-------

Anything that even remotely suggests female weakness is subject to condemnation. Yet men are continually depicted as lazy, sex-obsessed, helpless slobs whose main function in entertainment is to provoke laughs by getting kicked in the groin, and there is no backlash. WTF.

-------

Last night I watched the first 15 minutes or so of My Bloody Valentine. A young man is hit so hard in the back of his head with a pick axe that it pops one of his eyeballs out.

Then a girl has a shovel rammed into her mouth with enough force to separate the top part of her head from the rest of her body.

But I guess that's OK to show on TV because she wasn't naked or wearing lingerie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhjulkFRtJc

If you search Hank Hobbs' Yahoo group, you'll likely find some better quality download clips and stills from the movie, too.

I have to say, I'm a little surprised to see such a low grade, especially for a mainstream film with 2 naked upside-down bondage scenes. I mean, how often do you get even one naked upside-down bondage scene in a movie, period? Yeah, the scenes didn't go as far as we would have liked, but isn't that typical? Most mainstream scenes never go as far as I would like, but then if they did, they would likely be hardcore bondage films, wouldn't they? I totally understand your justification, though.

As always, your review link is in my Homepage URL above.

----------------

YikYakker: The past few links you've brought up lately are very interesting to me. I'm talking about the women's group wanting to ban the Gisele Bündchen commercial (which was clever, I thought) and the earlier one about the conservative group trying to get "The Playboy Club" canceled because it's degrading to women. That's such crap. Have we become so politically correct that we can't see the forest for the trees? Number one, women ARE sex objects. Pretty women are used to sell everything in the media...books, magazines, movies, commercials, even the news. How do you think Fox News suckers so many men into watching their right-wing hate speech propaganda...they do it with the allure of beautiful women "newscasters".

Number two, objectifying women is a good thing. It's a good thing for both men and for women. I'm not a male chauvinist pig, and I believe in women's rights and all that. But I also realize it's a woman's world. Female models make much more than male models do, and that's as it should be. If you're a pretty woman, you can make a LOT of money in this country. Men will pay to see you do just about anything. Things like Playboy and other forms of porn are empowering to women. We like it, and they like getting paid for it. When people come to realize that women are different from men and play different roles in society, this world will be a better place to live in.

And don't even get me started on how much better the bed scene could have been with some sex and nudity thrown into the mix. And maybe even some Carla Gugino nudity as well. It's not like Carla Gugino is a stranger to nude scenes. That could have been mind-blowing.

I do realize I am harder on movies that go halfway and then don't deliver than I am on movies that might not go as far but pay off as far as they go. That's why I try very hard to describe the scenes--and now with vidcaps, capture the visual--as well as possible so that readers can look at the pictures and think: I don't know what the hell his problem is, that looks damn hot to me!

* * * * *

Concerning the YikYakker news topics, my ever-developing sense of social history leads me to believe that the attacks on sexy women in the media and even for attacks on pornography in general are actually attacks on women. I haven't taken any women's studies courses (and frankly I'm not sure I could stand to, because in many cases I think they are part of the problem), but think about this. Intelligent people--men and women--leverage their intelligence to get ahead. Strong people--generally men but also some women--leverage their strength. Beautiful people--generally women but also some men--leverage their beauty. Intelligent and strong people exploit their intellect and strength without social disapproval, and are even celebrated for their accomplishments. But beautiful people who exploit their beauty are called shallow at best, and whores at worst.

I used to think it was all a soul-deep corruption passed genetically from functionally insane religious ancestors. America, after all, was founded by religious fundamentalists who came here to practice their own unique brands of hate and intolerance, not having the strength to force their will on others in Europe and essentially being driven out of Europe by the fundamentalists in power who did have the strength to force their practices on others.

But now I think it goes much deeper, to an innate hatred of women in general. I could go into the basis of that hate, but it is so fundamental that most people do not even recognize how it shapes their thoughts and attitudes. I think it stretches back to social mores put in place when god-worship first supplanted goddess-worship, and when social goals turned from fertility and construction to war and destruction. And over the tens of thousands of years it has been the norm, it has become figuratively cemented into our psyches.

If you can possibly put aside your deeply ingrained social prejudices, you can question why sex, which is pleasurable at all times and functionally necessary occasionally for the propagation of the species, gets such a bad rap. It is so illogically demonized that children can watch murder, torture, and other examples of man's general but endlessly inventive inhumanity toward his fellow man on television and in movies on a daily basis, but sex and nudity are strictly forbidden. To an objective mind, that makes no sense.

And here, finally, is my hypothesis: It is not sex per se that society is condemning, it is the most successful practitioners of sex--women--who are being condemned in a manner so cleverly and fundamentally devised that most people are not even aware it is happening. Even women are trained from birth to view themselves with self-loathing lest they wrest control of their own sexuality and employ that power to get ahead. So women who oppose pornography are actually, unconsciously, the "collaborators" in a social war helping to keep themselves subjugated.

It is not a conspiracy in the "second gunman" sense, but it has been ingrained in our thoughts and behaviors for so long that it will take a bold recognition of that concept and a concerted effort at rehabilitation to fix this corruption. That will challenge the current male-dominated power base, though, so if you are inclined to address this corruption be aware that you are Galileo before the evil domination of the Catholic Church and even though you are right, the power base and even the great unwashed, unintelligent, and unsophisticated masses are unknowingly aligned against you.

Personally, as a human being with a conscience, you can always strive to do the Right Thing and probably fly under the radar. Trying to rehabilitate others may raise your profile in dangerously visible ways, but it will be for a worthwhile cause. Sadly, though, one day you will be forced to choose between what is right and what is expedient, and that's when you will know the strength of your convictions. However, if strength of convictions were the sole test for passage into heaven, hell would be where almost everyone would be residing.

My two cents.

Unless you meant...let you in here? Dude, you're in! You don't have to sign up. You don't have to pay a membership fee. Unless you want to. Here, let me give you my PayPal address...

I already have a couple of earlier versions of this as it was a WIP, and they are among my favorites.

Storm rider has at least one more BATS pic that I'm sure you've seen, with a brunette at the stake.

All of his work I've seen so far is excellent! Thanks man.

John Galt - yeah, ditto your grade on "Rise" - they had it going nicely and let it get away - that scene with Cameron could have been so much more - and Ashley certainly is a cutie - I assume we will be seeing her again - thanks.

YikYakker - count me in on mad scientist flicks - love 'em - "Mill of the Stone Women" not only had some nice Gimpage but is a nicely done horror film in general - sometimes described as the best horror film no one has ever seen - your clip link with Dany Carrel is nice but she gets rescued - I prefer the earlier sequence running in parts 7-9 where Liana Orfei does not fare as well and gets the chemical stone treatment - I linked to a trailer of another mad scientist flick from the mid-fifties - now there is no surgical table but the concept is similar - using chicks to prolong the life of others - in this case they are bound and gagged, placed in a chemical bath with electrodes attached and drained of their "life forces" - loosely based on the mythology surrounding Comte St. Germain - the film is nowhere near as well done as "Mill" but I enjoy catching it every so often as there are several carry scenes, one with the best struggling ever - and found it a bit surprising they landed Victor Jory to play the main heavy.

Stay well all

Another interesting mad scientist flick is The Wax Mask, which successfully captures the spirit of similar movies from the same era. He turns his victims into paralyzed exhibits for his museum, but instead of an operating table he uses an electro-mechanical chair with a robotic injection device. And he certainly has good taste.

Today's Pic: Mmmmm, just the thing for a cold, wet fall day. I feel better already.

-------

John Galt: Looks like you've found another winner for us with Ashley - Drawing the Tub. That scene with the bad guy slinging the naked chick over his shoulder is a deal-maker.

I like your capping technique, too - making those pics all the same size and positioning them together seamlessly. Do you use particular software to do that?

Regarding your review of Rise: Blood Hunter: As someone who has taken some flak over the years for the grades I hand out in reviews, I understand where you're coming from. Frankly, as long as you continue to provide rich descriptions of the scenes and tell us what you like and don't like, that's good enough for me.

-------

Pedersen Erling: Welcome to the group; looking forward to hearing more from you.

-------

Long post alert: I'm going to chime in with a few thoughts about the whole sexism/objectification topic, but this post is already pretty lengthy so I'll stop in again and post my rant separately.

So now I use Photoshop. Basically, since all the vidcaps are the same size from the same source, I just mathematically figure out what size two across and two down is (or however many rows I want), create a blank image the right size, then copy the individual images into the composite and paste them side-by-side. After I get the whole composite image the way I want it, I re-size it to 600 pixels wide, since that fits best on the Reviews pages.

My vidcaps come from the snapshot utility of VLC Media Player, the best all-around video player in existence. And it's free.

I also cannot resist the opportunity to lighten up the original images to achieve better clarity, and color correct where possible. You'll notice I could not completely get rid of the sickly green color cast on the Ashley images.

Personally, I am torn between using fewer nice, full-size images, or composites that are necessarily smaller. The advantage of the composites is that I can show things that wouldn't be all that compelling as a single image, but in conjunction with others it is great. An excellent example of this is in the newly illustrated review I did of Screaming Dead, where--at Ralphus' suggestion--I included a picture of the red-hot dildo menacing the girl in the pit. A big picture of just that dildo wouldn't have been a good use of space, but placed beside the picture where she's looking down between her legs at it, well, it is quite effective, I think.

I like the pics from The Wax Mask, by the way. I may need to look that one up and check it out. Especially since it has... nudity.

I look forward to your sexism/objectification post.

The Screaming Dead review is a good example of a fine review made better because of the visuals. Sometimes you don't have 5 or 10 minutes to devote to reading a review. But everyone has time to look at pictures. If you like what you see, you'll likely read more. A naked woman tied up will grab someone's attention quicker than a bunch of black and white words telling about a naked woman tied up.

As for the Powershotz review, I was initially drawn into your review because of the pictures. Face it, Ashley looks damn hot all spread out and ballgagged like that. But after reading what you had to say, it sounds like more of the same things that frustrate me about Powershotz productions...models who are acting-challenged, vibrators and split-screens. 3 images in one shot? Here's an idea...how about editing and giving us the best shot?

Not to mention questionable camerawork and a sloppy lack of cutting. I know the idea is to put these things together quickly but gaffes like the one you mentioned take you out of the scene and can ruin the fantasy. Obviously, you liked it enough to give it a decent grade. I'll bet you've personally gotten him a lot of sales over the past few years.

The direct link to your review is in my Homepage URL above. Keep up the good work.

---------------

Lots of positive reactions to today's daily picture by Stormrider, and for good reason...it's a damn fine artwork. I know a lot of you aren't as enthused with burning as the stake as I am. but you have to admit it's a really well-done piece of work. As for more BATS, there's at least one more of his artworks with that theme. He hasn't finished e-mailing me out his collection, but I really love what I've seen.

He's one of the best poser artists I've found and the themes to his creations are what really ring my bell. Lots of medieval torture a la Maleficarum...in fact, a lot of his artworks are going to be exactly what Jane will endure in the movie. Besides BATS, there's horse torture, whipping and the rack. If you like what you see, be sure and leave feedback for him. He reads the forum and has posted here at least once. Hopefully he'll stop by and post at least once during his promotion.

@Bill K. : Glad you like it. It's an old pic that I've reworked since my skills (and software) have improved. Unfortunately, I only have a couple of BATS pics, all of which I've emailed to Ralphus. They are extremely challenging/ time consuming to do in a way that looks even remotely believable (and interesting).

@ shankster: I'm honored that this is one of your favorites...it's one of mine too. I'm somewhat embarrased by my earlier attempts at that pic (and Poser in general). Which is why it's always been knawing at me to fix it up.

@ Ralphus: Thanks for the kind words and for sharing my art with the group. A caveat, though: Not all of my pics are this polished. This is mainly due to my short attention span, and in some cases due to my lack of skills in a specific area. Having said that, comments/ critiques are most welcome. Peace.

It's much easier for advocates to attack what they perceive to be the symbols of their nemeses in the media (advertisements, TV shows, movies, porn, music, etc.). Groups can achieve tangibles wins, such as getting a TV show canceled, convincing Wal-Mart to stop selling certain videos/CDs, persuading retailers to pull ads. They loudly celebrate these moral victories in order to shore up or increase support from members, volunteers, contributors, sponsors and fellow travelers. They get media attention and crow about their 'achievements' in their annual reports and newsletters. Oh, they'll admit, there is still much work to be done. But do they ever get it done? Does any of this really end or reduce the practice of sexism in everyday life? Where is the evidence?

"But," they'll say, "these images treat women as sex objects, they 'influence attitudes' and 'send the wrong message'. We must stamp out every last one of them." But ultimately, these messages are "fantasies". A message, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. Reality is what goes on in everyday life. Is there a cause-and-effect relationship between messages and behavior? Damned if I know, nor do I care. I have not found studies linking media experiences to attitudes or behavior - sexist or violent - to be convincing. What I want to know is - how to these advocates actually change the real lives of real people in the community?

Consider the practice of witch-hunting. Disease killing off your cows? Witchery. Lightning struck your house and it burned to the ground? Blame the witch and execute her. Witch-hunting didn't explain why these disasters happened, nor did it remedy the problems. But it made everyone feel safer and buttressed community support for authority figures. It was also a convenient way for authorities to reclaim their power and get rid of 'troublesome' people. All without doing any real thinking or showing any respect for human life.

I've got no problem with religious crusaders who want to eradicate child pornography. It's a real problem with real consequences. What's the point of going after 'The Playboy Club' TV show? It's like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. "Hey, we might not be accomplishing anything, but we're doing it with righteous zeal!"

Just one last point, and then I'll jump off the soapbox. When the original Charlie's Angels series aired on TV, it was criticized as one of an increasing wave of "jiggle shows" - Three's Company was another - that flaunted women's sensuality to achieve high ratings. But the parents' group that attacked the show didn't get very far with their opposition. So they switched tactics - they said the show was "too violent". Huh? Rarely did anyone get killed, or even hurt badly on that show. But you know what really bugged these advocates? The idea of men engaging in hand-to-hand combat with women. Oh, how horrible. None of these women ever got hit hard, and never got punched in the face. And there were countless shows that were more violent on TV, but that was OK, it was only men getting killed or hurt by other men. Bah! The hypocrisy sickens me.

Folks, thanks for tolerating my long rant. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

What I can't understand is...what do they have against sexy women? Is it religion per se that sees images of them as something evil that must be eradicated? I was raised as a Christian and I've never felt that way. I don't recall any anti-pornography sermons in church. The closest thing I remember was being at a youth group outing in the late 70s or early 80s and hearing one of the pastors suggest they should have a bonfire and have people throw copies of Playboy magazine onto it. I don't know if that ever happened or not. All I know is that somehow they seem to equate porn with being anti-God. You know, lead us not into temptation. You can't worship God if you also worship sex. I guess that's it, right?

But what do I know? Maybe I just don't understand the way religious people think. After all, I'm the one who went up to the Amish woman and told her she would look a lot hotter if she would only let her hair down.

• Shark 231

• Slave Island 11

• Slave Island 7

• Real World III

• Riko Tachibana Special

• Shark Special 35

Special thanks to Ralphus for all his work adding the photos to the reviews. It's important to understand that I give instructions the same way people in small towns give travel directions ("When you get to that big tree where the old church used to be, before it was burned down in the '80s...") so plenty of patience was required on our moderator's part to understand where I wanted the caps placed. His help is very much appreciated.

There are some other reviews I plan to cap down the road, but I no longer own the discs, so I will have to get new copies. I know Sloth would expect me to cap Slave Town 2 with Maria Ozawa, and there are some others that deserve to be illustrated. I will get to them at some point.

Of course, this brings up an interesting question. I own some discs for movies that have been reviewed on the forum but weren't reviewed by me. There are at least a couple that I wouldn't mind capping, but that may be a violation of the Prime Directive. Something for our fearless leader to think about.

It's not the sexy woman they hate...they perceive the sexy woman as a symbol of what they hate: lust, temptation, moral decay. These problems are big and intractable, so they pick the easier target and go after the sexy women.

I was raised as a Christian and I've never felt that way. I don't recall any anti-pornography sermons in church.

Time was when no one would even use the word *gasp* pornography in church. They didn't even want to acknowledge that it was out there.

I was raised in Pennsylvania, and assuming that you were raised in Ohio, I can assure you that if you cross the Mason-Dixon line or the Ohio River you are likely to hear a lot more preaching about pornography.

-------

esso wrote [about sexism in the workplace]: ...what could an advocacy group do? Sue. And there is a more than 50/50 chance she'd win.

Well, you're absolutely right. First, let me salute you and your company for maintaining the proper attitudes about women.

Secondly, I would point out that it takes a woman with a great deal of courage and knowledge and support to step forward like that, and it takes a group with a lot of patience and resources to pursue a lengthy legal process instead of going for a quick headline. Where these elements are missing is probably where a lot of the problems are.

BTW, you are not a racist, but since Eddie Murphy is older than Chris Rock, you might be accused of being an ageist.;)

-------

John Galt: I wholeheartedly agree with your views about The Screaming Dead, and I like the caps you've added. I see your point about how the four-in-one pics help illustrate GIMPage-in-progress; I think it's a great idea.

Sometimes I feel conflicted about watching Misty Mundae. Her performances are charming and natural. But that baby-doll face and petite structure makes me feel like I'm watching someone torture a 14-year-old. But then I get over it.

I don't have Photoshop - I use SnagIt. Supposedly it has the capability of making composite pictures, but I haven't figured it out yet. Or maybe it's on the "Pro" version or some such thing.

You wrote: My vidcaps come from the snapshot utility of VLC Media Player, the best all-around video player in existence. And it's free.

Absolutely agree with that, I use the snapshot feature for all of my caps.

-------

Homepage URL: Remember that old saying about the rooster who thinks his crowing causes the sun to rise because one happens after the other?

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, you cannot easily a find more lucid example of hatred of women than Christianity. All of the sins of humanity, the "fall" of mankind from grace, are all attributed to the first woman, and all women since then have borne the curse of her "evil." That's why women menstruate, you know. It is a monthly curse for Eve's Original Sin. I'm not making this stuff up: It is in the Bible for anyone to read. And there are all sorts of lunatics (more commonly called "Christians") who believe it, lock, stock, and barrel.

And, as you know if you're up on your Christian mythology, Eve led Adam into temptation, as all women have done to all men since, you know, Creation, which happened on October 23, 4004 BCE. (We're coming up on the earth's 6,015th birthday in a few weeks, if you want to celebrate. Don't forget to don your festively decorated dunce cap. Oh, and it will also be BYOB--Bring Your Own Bible.)

Pornography is just the most visible (and profitable) method for these wicked and sensuous creatures to continue leading all righteous and God-fearing men into temptation. Pornography may not be anti-God, but God is definitely anti-pornography--as well as anti-woman.

* * * * *

A Canadian: I was just wondering which reviews you might have illustrated after Ralphus mentioned it. Thanks for the list. I will be checking them out.

As John Galt mentioned, this show should have been on premium cable. That way, a show like "The Playboy Club" could show the raw sex and violence they were only hinting at on broadcast TV.

I'll miss seeing the breathtaking Amber Heard, Laura Benanti and the other actresses in their titillating outfits, along with the eventual future plots of all of them at some point put in sexual jeopardy.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, you cannot easily a find more lucid example of hatred of women than Christianity. All of the sins of humanity, the "fall" of mankind from grace, are all attributed to the first woman, and all women since then have borne the curse of her "evil." That's why women menstruate, you know. It is a monthly curse for Eve's Original Sin. I'm not making this stuff up: It is in the Bible for anyone to read. And there are all sorts of lunatics (more commonly called "Christians") who believe it, lock, stock, and barrel.

This is just plain insulting, and hardly "lucid." Christianity attributes sin to temptation coming from Satan, not women. Christianity does not hate women, as evidenced by the reverence for Mary as the Mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene, who in the Bible is seen as being smarter than many of the men. In fact, the resurrected Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, hardly something that would happen if women were hated. Note also that Mary Magdalene is hardly a pure person, the implication being that even a less than pure woman deserves respect. As for an easier example for the hatred of women, try the Taliban in Afghanistan where women aren't allowed to go to school, drive, or be seen unless covered. BTW, where in the Bible does it say that menstuation is the punishment for Original Sin? If it's there to read, kindly point it out to us. Otherwise, I say you're making this stuff up.

And, as you know if you're up on your Christian mythology, Eve led Adam into temptation, as all women have done to all men since, you know, Creation, which happened on October 23, 4004 BCE. (We're coming up on the earth's 6,015th birthday in a few weeks, if you want to celebrate. Don't forget to don your festively decorated dunce cap. Oh, and it will also be BYOB--Bring Your Own Bible.)

This was promulgated not by the Bible, but by a Protestant bishop, James Ussher in 1648, using the limited knowledge of the time. Obviously, facts since 1648 (not available to him) prove his calculations to be completely wrong, something I suspect would have forced Ussher to adjust his timeline accordingly. Yes, there are a few people who still believe his incorrect timeline, but they are a minority, not the majority. Perhaps you should study up on history instead of misguided general hatred.

Being Roman Catholic myself, I can tell you that many pieces of authorized art feature nude women. So please don't try this BS about Christianity in general hating women, sex, or nudity. True, some groups (e.g. the Puritans, the Pilgrims, etc) show clear sexual hangups. But you are too smart to paint with such a wide brush and the vitriol you provide does not do justice to your intellect. Being Christian is not incompatible with enjoying sex, enjoying nudity, or even liking GIMP art. It's just that some people, both Christians and non-Christians (think atheist feminist, for example) feel that any sexual portrayal of women via the media is exploitive and degrading, which is a political/personal viewpoint.

To bring this back to GIMP, it's clear that regular television has to fit into the mainstream, avoiding offense to the audience it seeks. That's why movies are edited for television with all the good parts cut. It's why low rated shows get cancelled. If shows like the Playboy Club got huge ratings, then offended people couldn't get it cancelled no matter how much they protested. FACT: You can't please everyone.

There's plenty of nudity on shows like Game of Thrones, GIMP and nudity on True Blood, nudity and GIMP in Dexter, nudity in Hung, etc. If the hangups Mr. Galt talks about existed generally, these shows would see Christians rioting in the streets (particularly for True Blood).

BTW, nice reviews from John Galt and much appreciated.

A mainstream B-movie from the 1970s. You all might know the bullwhipping scene. A male slave is allowed to punish an Amazon. The topless, busty blonde is tied up at the whipping post and gets 7 lashes (German version). You can see the whip-impact. One lash sucks into her breast and the body is thrown backwards. It's one of my favourite whipping scene - and I know nearly every female whipping in movies. But: For now 30 years I`m searching for the name of the actress (perhaps a body-double ?).

Does anyone know her name? Other appearances in movies ?
Please post here or mail to me!

whipping-greetings from Germany
Klingsor

The whip sounds are phoney as hell, but who cares. Great action and great to see this blonde bombshell tits out and raring to be viewed.

Great to be reminded. Here's the scene for those that don't have it: http://www.pornhost.com/6469722487/

BTW, just wondered if anybody else saw that film Swept Away the other night.

I am referring to the 1974 version, with Mariangela Melato as the bitch, not Madonna.

Its script was pretty Gimp-worthy in places where the lead threatens to punish her and she has to call him master and kiss his feet. All stuff that in a better context with some real power behind the threats would make star viewing for sure.

Didn't watch the whole thing, but I did like the dialogue of what I did see. Typical European mid-seventies stuff from that point of view and besides. seeing Mariangela Melato for long periods in a bikini has to be worth a watch.

Greg

A Canadian - Maria who? - but yes, those would be nice additions to the review - I'm waiting for the movie review on your latest dungeon babe.

With Halloween fast approaching I'll beak out my Inquisitor costume - not for trick or treating but so I'll be in character for viewing "Maleficarum" when released.

Stay well all

Seriously, it's fine work.

I'll bet Jane von Detlefson is glad she didn't have to sit on a horse of that type.

---------

Klingsor: Thanks for reminding us about that whipping scene from Battle of the Amazons. Like you, I'm a fan of whipping scenes, but I'm not sure I have this one. Sorry can't help you with the actress' name.

Greg: Thanks for the link to that scene. The originator of the whipping database wrote a commentary about it that was not very favorable, but it looks pretty hot to me. Perhaps he wasn't watching the German version?

-------

MrAnthony: I appreciate your clarity on the issue of Christianity vis a vis women. Most scholars feel that compared with other religions that were around at the time it began, Christianity was relatively respectful of women, which is why it initially spread quickly.

But the roots of hostility toward overt acts of sexuality go much farther back in history. Since the beginning of civilization, human societies have tried to regulate sexual behavior. Most of those attempts centered on distinguishing between sex for the purpose of reproduction and sex for the purpose of recreation. Humankind (or its leadership) seemed to feel that people would have so much fun having sex-for-recreation that they would forget about sex-for-reproduction. If such practices as masturbation, sodomy, fellatio and homosexuality caught on, the human race would be threatened with eventual extinction.

That notion seems absurd to us today but the emotional and religious layers surrounding the idea have passed down through the centuries up to the present day. The term Fornication, as defined by traditional Christianity, basically covers any type of sexual behavior that does not involve an effort to reproduce.

This accounts for the abject hatred that many religious leaders and their followers have toward fornication. But they're probably not even aware of how or why that hatred started, so they have to rationalize it with the "wrong message" or "evil influence" concepts.

By extension, any symbolic representation of fornication, or anything that espouses, condones, or "glorifies" it (like pornography, TV, or "raunchy music") is subject to condemnation. Hence the opposition to The Playboy Club which is equated with non-monogamous sex (a variant of fornication).

Note that the Parents' Television Council referred to Playboy as a "brand". A brand is a symbolic representation of something. See what a long, strange trip this has been?

Now, GIMPage = sexuality + violence, so it's even more problematical (except for us, of course). GIMPage symbolically represents - remember it's not reality, it's fantasy - two things that religious groups and others want to attack. The media have become gladiatorial arenas for symbolic conflicts. Absurd, isn't it?

Folks, thanks for tolerating another long post, sometimes I get carried away.

------

Sloth wrote:

I'm waiting for the movie review on your latest dungeon babe.

I will get to it.

The challenge will be on the capping side, rather than the writing end. I downloaded a version of the movie off the Internet and, unfortunately, my version has watermarks in it (I have no idea why). Thus, for capping purposes, I will need to get a copy of the disc from the U.S., which may take a few weeks.

Nonetheless, I definitely will review it at some point.

The link to your latest review is in my Homepage URL above.

------------------

The Playboy Club: I never saw the show except for the Amber Heard rape scene online, but I'm not sure it had a lot of potential as a show GIMPers could get around. I mean, Playboy Magazine itself was pretty mild and never really explored dark sexual fantasies in a way that other skin mags did. The whole reason why the magazine was famous was because it was the first mainstream publication that showed beautiful women naked. The TV show had the beautiful women, but you can't have nudity on network TV, so what's the point? People probably got tired of being teased and gave up on it. The protests that caused the advertisers to drop out definitely didn't help things.

I think a better choice for us would be that "Criminal Minds" show. Isn't there a spinoff this season? I wouldn't know since I barely ever watch TV. From what I hear, the first show has been very GIMP-friendly. Anybody know if the new show has delivered?

------------------

Badger wrote:

Superb artwork in today's pic.

I knew you guys would like these. Stormrider e-mailed me the rest of his collection yesterday. He warned me not to expect much, that these others weren't nearly as polished as the others. Well, he's either extremely modest or very tough on himself, because the others are just as great as the early ones. In fact, one of his "lesser" ones is the horse pic I ran tonight.

------------------

YikYakker wrote:

I'll bet Jane von Detlefson is glad she didn't have to sit on a horse of that type.

I think she did, didn't she? The design is different, but the point looks pretty sharp in this still from Maleficarum. If you've got a triangular wedge cutting into your pussy and it's supporting your weight, I'll bet that's plenty uncomfortable. Plus she's got the weights tied to each angle, further pulling down her body and putting more pressure on that sensitive area between her legs. But then I'm no expert. I just figured a horse is a horse (of course, of course).

Here's a little mini review of a new movie, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries. The storyline of the movie is pretty familiar, viral outbreak turns most of the world's population to zombies and a small group of survivors struggles to avoid the same fate.

The movie follows a group of troops, and at about an hour in, they are taken hostage by a group of guys who, let's just say do as they please now that there's no social order or authority to stop them.

One of the female soldiers (Vicky Araico) is hurt, and they proceed to rip her gear off (top shown only) and rape her. She's definitely gagged, and it looks like her arms are probably tied behind her back but it's unclear. She's injured to the point that she can't put up much of a fight regardless.

It's a short but unsettling scene.

Well, how convenient that Steve just released VL-065 - Hot Wet Bitches as a DVD and also in a downloadable version. It looks like it features the two Ashley clips I reviewed (plus another one, I think), as well as some clips of Aubrie. I bought an Aubrie clip--one of the anal training variety--but it doesn't look like that one is included on this DVD.

I will review the Aubrie clip in the next day or so, to give you some idea of what to expect from her. This is not the same gal as Aubrey, who I reviewed in a clip with Tatum called Aubrey and Tatum - Can't Get It In.

* * * * *

YikYakker: I do not understand why primitive societies would arbitrarily decide that sex for any reason other than procreation would pose a threat to the survival of society and so oppose it. I have never read anything to that effect, and personally I believe it gives primitive man credit for much more intelligence than he probably had. It is my observation that man rarely does anything for the good of society--the most compelling reasons for action are typically selfish.

So I would disagree with you on that point, and since there is very little (actually, no) documentation from prehistory available to substantiate or disprove either of our proposals, we can agree to disagree. However, I think that my suspicion that man almost always acts for selfish reasons is closer to reality than your suspicion that he is looking out for the greater good of society. But then I am a misanthrope so that probably colors my view.

I also dispute that any religion is or has ever been "respectful" of women in any sense of the word. The baseline for respect, to my way of thinking, is according someone equality. As recently as 2008, the Vatican issued a decree that any woman ordained as a Catholic priest would be excommunicated latae sentientiae, as would any Bishop who participated in the ordination. That hardly sounds respectful or deferential. It sounds like it is intended to keep women in their place. Here, in the 21st Century.

However, I do think, as GIMPers, we owe a massive debt of gratitude to all religions--most especially Roman Catholicism, for those of us in the Western World--for the wonderful tortures and inventive means of painfully killing women they pioneered. (To be truthful they slaughtered men as well, but there's no GIMP value in that.) There is a reason the Inquisition figures into so many of our favorite movies. Protestants certainly continued the horrors, but honestly I can't think of any substantial improvements they made to the classic methods of torture perfected by the Catholics. They burned witches, of course, but so did the Catholics. No, I think Protestants were just as wicked and brutal in their methods but definitely less inventive and original. Can anyone think of some torture method invented by the Puritans? (I really am curious.)

That's not to say that the Japanese and Chinese didn't also provide us with a lot of great torture devices. They did. I mean, come on, they turned rope bondage into an art. I'm not saying Western religions cornered the market on torture, cruelty and brutality. I'm just saying, you know, they held their own.

But just think how dull our GIMPish existences would be without such wonderful source material. So I guess religion is good for at least that.

As to why societies regulate sexual behavior, the obvious motivation behind control is fear. But ancient fears, over time, become so layered over with ignorance, superstitions (like religions), rationalizations and even pseudo-academic posturings that the original reasons behind those fears become lost. "Hatred of women", like its cousin "objectification of women" is simply a layer covering up the fear that is at its root. I don't think our ideas are incompatible in every respect. But I stand behind my assertion that there is a lot more involved than what you have presented.

Lewdness -> temptation -> lust -> fornication

So crusaders who are frustrated in their attempts to control fornication start at the beginning of the chain and attack lewdness, or more specifically, lewd images. Hence the campaigns against sexuality in advertisements, movies, TV etc.

Crusaders will continue to fight against images as long as they believe that images are more powerful, more influential upon behavior, than other human attributes like intelligence, knowledge or even common sense. I maintain that this belief in the power of images is simply an excuse for going after easy, abstract targets.

I don't mind if people want to solve real problems. Just keep your hands off my fantasies.

I thought you might want a female perspective on the issues. Any society or religion that attempts to legislate against nature is just spitting into the wind. Our sexual nature can only be controlled to a limited extent and then our animal instincts will take over. You can pave the forest and make a parking lot, but without maintenance it will return to a forest in just a couple centuries.

As to what is the nature of women vs. men, that is the relevant question. Just because I'm a submissive female in a sexual relationship doesn't imply that I'm submissive in a societal role. In fact, I'm quite the opposite. But, my preferences do not necessarily constitute the norm.

I was raised a Catholic as well and I have the scars to prove it. The problem with Catholicism in the U.S. today relates to the ridiculous policy of maintaining celibacy for priests and nuns. It goes against the very nature of humanity and is doomed to the failures we've experienced in the church today.

As for what it says in the Bible, if I want to read fantasy, I'll go to the Gimp's fiction section.

Stormrider: Great artwork! Thanks.

Ralphus: A horse is not just a horse. Stormrider's horse had a sharp metal point which would be like sitting on a knife. Ouch! And her hands were tied behind her, which means all of her weight is permanently placed in one spot. With the AOH position, one can at least pull herself up for some temporary relief.

Nia - well played with the parking lot analogy - although with a species as violent and aggressive as we I suspect it would not take centuries to revert, probably not even decades.

Insomniac - nice screen shot and sounds like a nice scenario - thanks.

John Galt - although they did not invent it the Puritans perfected a torture method that endures to this day - it's called having to sit through one of their two hour sermons - Amen.

Stay well all

When you said the roots of hostility toward overt acts of sexuality go much farther back in history, I did indeed misunderstand you if you were saying you thought that hostility did not exist prior to "civilization," a starting point that I will admit now that I still cannot fully place on the historical timeline.

I do not think "pre-civilized" man--whenever that was--had any concept of society and therefore never made any choices "for the good of society." I was indeed referring to man in some form of early civilization.

I also did not mean to imply that I thought there was no record of early civilizations attempting to regulate sexual behavior. My point, as you continued to discuss, is the "why" of that attempted regulation.

You said: Humankind (or its leadership) seemed to feel that people would have so much fun having sex-for-recreation that they would forget about sex-for-reproduction. If such practices as masturbation, sodomy, fellatio and homosexuality caught on, the human race would be threatened with eventual extinction.

I interpreted that to mean that you were saying that societal leaders were taking steps to head off practices they feared would lead to extinction. I do not think that any leadership council in any society came to the conclusion that, for the good (if not the survival) of society, pleasurable fornication must end. (Logically, since methods of birth control were primitive at best, it is not unreasonable to posit that sex for pleasure quite often ended in reproduction anyway, whether intentional or not, and consequently life would go on.)

I believe sexual taboos were made to control people for selfish purposes. Control people's sex lives and you control people. And in a patriarchal society, it makes all sorts of sense to place the restrictions primarily on women, so as not to spoil the men's fun.

I would like you to explore what "fear" you think drives sexual repression. I would suspect it is a fear of losing power and influence. But when did that fear translate to hatred of women? What, exactly, is the connection between repressing sex and suppressing women? Men have sex as well.

Or is there no connection? Does the deep-seated hatred of women--evident throughout history in any number of aspects--have no relationship to sex? Have we conflated the two with no justification? Personally, I think they are connected. Sexual taboos just seem to negatively impact women a lot more than men, even though, arguably, both sexes practice it equally. There is something there.

And does that contribute to our appreciation for GIMP? Are we GIMPers one small step up in the sexual evolutionary tree? Below us stand the cruel misogynists who enjoy using and abusing women, keeping them subordinate and powerless to be used as sexual playthings and reproductive tools, and when they find a woman they cannot use or control, they employ social and religious mores to "get even."

And we GIMPers also have this dark love of cruelty and sexual deviancy, but instead of committing the atrocities that would satisfy those cravings, we enjoy them vicariously through entertainment media. It is also possible, of course, that there is a sexual evolutionary step above us, that feels none of those illicit sexual yearnings. However, I see no evidence of the existence of that evolved man, since I would expect him to also have an equally elevated respect for women. No, I don't see that very much at all.

I have thought about this (obviously), and examined some of my own feelings, vis-a-vis women in peril. Most of all, I like the visual. Let's consider a beautiful, helpless naked young woman stretched out on a rack. There's the intoxicating symphony of shapely limbs and torso, pulled nice and taut into sleek, smooth lines and planes and valleys. Of course, in my fantasy, there is also the gleaming sheen of perspiration, with the occasion drop forming and rolling downward, off the side of silky smooth legs, or down off of the breasts into the hollow of the delicate throat, or collecting in the belly button, or streaming down the insides of the creamy white thighs, coursing around the various sexual landmarks.

Then it is all made better as she struggles, curling her toes, flexing her fingers and making helpless fists as she pulls at the ropes cutting into her delicate wrists and shapely ankles. Visualize her muscles flexing and twisting uselessly as she realizes her helplessness.

Then the expressions and sounds she makes as she is used and abused. This is one of the reasons that "torture by vibrator" is acceptable to me. The visual and audible expressions of inflicting pain and, say, over-stimulation by vibrator, are remarkably similar. I just like that loss-of-control look and sound. Fear, apprehension, and anxiety are all exciting expressions on the face of a helpless hottie.

It is not so much about the pain or the concept of torture that appeals to me. Torturing men isn't my thing. Naked sweaty men bound and stretched just doesn't do it for me. But that isn't because I hate women. I really, realy like women. It's men I don't care much for. You know?

* * * * *

Nia: I'm so glad you are enjoying the discussion. You sound like what I consider to be an almost mythical creature: a strong, confident woman who enjoys the occasional submissive sex role. You don't ride a unicorn, do you?

What a shame to hear that you have scars from being raised Catholic. How unusual for a religion that is so respectful of women. HAhahahaha. Sorry, Benedict XVI--that was a cheap shot.

Anyway, thanks for joining in. I appreciate your comments, especially since they more-or-less align with my own thoughts and we all love to have people agree with us.

* * * * *

Sloth: Oh my god, you are right. I should have been clearer and asked for torture methods that are also fun to watch. Sitting through 2-hour sermons is equally torturous as having to watch someone sit through a 2-hour sermon. I think I can safely predict that we will never see a GIMP database of 2-hour sermon torture scenes.

* * * * *

And last but certainly not least, a very hearty well done to Stormrider for some strikingly compelling images.

Then I guess I should be glad that I was raised Catholic like Nia. Our sermons ran about 15-20 minutes and consisted solely of the priest begging for money.

-------

Nia: I too am glad you find this to be a good place for intelligent discussion and chose to join in. We may disagree about things at times, but everyone here puts a lot of thought behind what they write.

I don't mean to bore everyone with my long, windy essays, but I hope you all will indulge me one more time while I address a question posed by...

John Galt who wrote: I would like you to explore what "fear" you think drives sexual repression. I would suspect it is a fear of losing power and influence. But when did that fear translate to hatred of women? What, exactly, is the connection between repressing sex and suppressing women? Men have sex as well.

Anyone who can definitively answer those questions would likely win a Nobel prize. There are lots of theories; here's one to consider: In societies that offer few options or opportunities, life often involves a choice between controlling or being controlled. It's not hard to imagine men in pre-historic times using their physical advantages to assert control, rather than hand that control over to women. Eventually, that control was buttressed by layering on social, political, legal and even mythical ideas to perpetuate those advantages. (I'm reminded of the line in the movie The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean when one of the characters, narrating the story, says, "Then women got the vote, and everything went to hell." It was played for laughs, but probably touches on the fear of change and loss of control that many men must have felt at the time.)

To some extent, "emancipation" has been associated with loosening of sexual norms. The "free love" espoused in the 1960s was not entirely new; a similar trend occurred during the Roaring 20s, when women showed more skin and began to scoff at the limitations placed on their "fun". I don't think it's a coincidence that this era emerged not long after women attained the right to vote.

As to why men would have wanted to restrict women's sexual behavior, when they themselves enjoy it? That feeling of loss of control. If you had a wife or girlfriend who was trying on every dick in town, you would have to be an extremely tolerant fellow to allow that to go on for long. Marriage probably was initiated as means of shutting off other men's access to your woman (or your woman's access to other men). Remember chastity belts? Neither do I, but I've heard of them. But that was also wrapped up in property considerations: men considered women as part of their property, and any legitimate sons they bore would inherit the rest. Back in the day illegitimacy was a messy affair that could lead to violence, and among the wealthy and politically powerful, even war.

Throughout history, much of human knowledge about sex consisted of superstition and lore - information passed along verbally from generation to generation - until science and education either proved or debunked most of these beliefs. But even today, there are some naïve schoolgirls who believe their boyfriends when they say, "If we do it standing up, you won't get pregnant." More mythology.

BTW, isn't it odd that humans have established social hierarchies based on some physical characteristics like gender, race - and even, some researchers say, on physical height (sorry, Ralphus) - while ignoring other obvious ones like eye color, hair color and nose shape?

We humans have one foot stuck in the past and another in the present. The more we understand about how we arrived here, the sooner we'll be able to unload the excess baggage.

Thanks for being a perverted artistic genius, Stormrider!

Now right there is an example of why we like to get a woman's point of view on these things. What you've said reminds me of a recent post by either Jane or Margot describing Jane's experience shooting the horse scene in Maleficarum. JJ was not happy with having Jane's arms tied straight because he felt it would look too much like she was holding herself up. Instead, Jane was tied so that her elbows were bent at an angle. That not only looked more painful, it surely must have felt that way to Jane. That's another reason why we admire her so much: her devotion to her art.

Quite a bit from this month that I'm interested in watching, though, particularly Slave Investigator 2.

The plain and simple fact is that without some civilizing influences--family, religion, laws, science being examples--we would be no more than animals, with the strong taking from the weak (hint: most of us would be prey for those dumb jocks from high school who picked on anyone not like them), and women being property of a few. We need some laws, rules, and codes of conduct (commonly called "manners") in order for our society to function and more importantly, to grow. Without it, we'd have no art, no cities, no Internet, and no Barbarian Queen.

Insulting Christianity will not make it irrelevant nor make it go away. To its credit, religion usually has a core set of beliefs in a world which is becoming more nihilistic. And frankly, if nothing is ever forbidden or wrong, some of the fun goes away too.

@Nia: Regarding the idea that the problem with the Catholic church is the issue of celibacy, I would respectfully suggest that the problem isn't celibacy itself, but that certain kinds of people are drawn to the idea of being in positions of respect or power so they can exploit others or engage in bad behavior under the cloak of respectability. Being human isn't giving in to urges; being human is the ability to go beyond the urges and do something greater (e.g. instead of running around and attacking women, making a video and living out fantasies is much healthier for everyone).

We all carry scars from our past, whether that's from overly strict parents, old lovers, people who took advantage of our feelings/vulnerabilities, or whatever battles have been fought. Being human means learning from those battles, moving on, and growing. Nietzsche wrote, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." While he would no doubt be upset at the idea of applying this quote in such a non-nihilistic way (although probably pleased at the concept of religion causing scars), there is no doubt that we are all shaped by, and victims of, our own past and of our own society. To a large extent, it is up to each of us individually to choose whether to grow beyond these scars, simply live with them, or carry them as scarlet letters (how's that for a Puritan reference?).

Next month's Attackers movies looks like their worst month in a very long while. I don't think I'm interested in a single one of the movies.

I had the exact same reaction. Next month will be a write-off.

@ Bill K: I've tried using various whipmarks, etc., but (with a few exceptions) I find them to be too gruesome (or too real) for regular use. I myself prefer the "unspioled" fantasy, but I certainly don't begrudge any who prefer their fantasies to be a little more "real". From a strictly technical perspective, they are a real bitch to make convincing.

@ Badger: Thanks. I do love the horse. Makes for great dungeon scenes in my book.

I remember Love Camp 7. What a great movie. They don't seem to make them like that anymore. The horse scene featured one of the hottest women I've ever seen in that type of movie.

@ YikYakker: Thanks, glad you like them. I think Jane did sit on that type of horse (weights and all). I am mildly disappointed in the decision to bind Jane AOH like that. That is mearly my own kink talking, however. I am still stoked for the release of Maleficarum (BATS and rack scene specifically).

@ Covers: Thanks. I'm honored that you would include my work in your "select" folder... I think we all have one of those.

@ Sloth (and Ralphus): Thanks for the kind words. I AM pretty hard on myself when it comes to my art (if I can call it that). I have seen artists (like Quoom and Arcus) that do some amazing things with the tools available to them. Beside them, I am merely a dabbler. That said, I do love making them :) And Sloth, I do occasionally do hanging pics. Again, nothing too gruesome though.

Sorry if I forgot anyone... It's late and I'm tired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ne3e_QulA0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Stormrider - being as big as I am on artwork the gruesome factor is secondary - the being well done issue is primary and your work certainly is that - and once done on whatever medium is used our victim never gets old - probably why I'm the big MAM's collector in this bunch - thanks so much.

MeetThePryz and A Canadian - I had the same thoughts concerning the newest Attackers releases - placed an order yesterday from the archives on some older titles and am hoping they are still in stock - perhaps I'll get lucky on a Yuka Haneda title.

John Galt - as always thanks for the review - based on content it would be a view - now if we could just convince her to be rid of the electrodes on her ears and the trailer hitch on her tongue we might have a complete winner.

Stay well all

The thing I remember about my youthful exposure to the faith was the overwhelming emphasis on suffering. My school and house of worship were rife with statues and pictures of the Man being stripped, whipped and tortured.

We were compelled to read a book called Lives of the Saints, which contained a number of passages that could have been taken from the GIMPer's Manual. (Ironically, some of the martyrs depicted in that book - not all saints were martyrs - were Christians who were victimized by non-Christians).

The prayers and rituals we learned were full of imagery (sometimes very poetic and vivid) about pain and suffering. It seemed like there was a masochistic/sadistic thread running through the whole process.

Now I've been out of the loop a long time, but I'm pretty sure Catholicism has gone through some changes since those dark ages. And I'm not going to say that the religion turned me into a GIMPer; I firmly believe that I have been a GIMPer since the day the doctor held me up by my toes and slapped my ass. (One might consider it a gift from God; but I won't go there).

My point is that the atmosphere in which I grew up provided a lot of fuel for my GIMPish fantasies. (I should clarify that in my pre-pubescent years, I was an equal-opportunity GIMPer. In my adult years, I began to wonder if there wasn't also a homo-erotic aspect to Catholicism.)

I have dozens of family members who are still Catholic, and they are good people and decent citizens. I respect them and I respect their beliefs, although I don't understand the women-folk in my clan. To me, being a female Catholic seems a lot like being a member of Democrats for Palin. But, whatever.

While Catholism has its problems, it is far from the worst institution in America, or the world. Other religions, and other political, economic and ideological systems, are also rife with oppressive practices.

Still, I believe that there is only a small percentage of truly evil people (I've worked for a few of them) but even a few can cause major problems.

While John Galt focuses on the selfish aspects of humans, I tend to look at the folly of our species. (It's like John Galt and I are peeking into the same house, but through different windows). Among our most foolish tendencies is that of following or tolerating evil, manipulative people.

But getting back to the original point of this ongoing discussion - yes, there really was one - given all the real problems in this world, it's a shame that so much time and so many resources are devoted to stamping out the imagery of sexual/violent fantasies. Many religions - and I would specify two, Catholicism and Islam, only because I'm most familiar with them - will need to find a great deal of courage, energy and will to overcome the legacies of violence and oppression of women that they've instilled in the perceptions of others.

Personally, I doubt that they are up to the task.

And thanks to High Horse for the link. Several good clips there. Doesn't matter if they're played for laughs, they're still better acting and set up than most.

Lot of activity on the board recently. That's one way to keep Ralphus quiet(er).

John Galt - Um... I was making a joke about making dad jokes for 2 hours... obviously I would cover more pertinent issues on the commentary, no worries, I won't turn it into an episode of Mystery Science Theater. Which brings me to...

Ralphus - Thanks for the dad joke, stellar, you're obviously a master of that type of humor. I'm a big fan of puns as well.

So, the horse, eh? Yes, it was painful. I was more or less suspended over the horse before, and then we changed it, so I was really sitting on it. There were a couple of reasons for this, when I was tightly suspended, I could not move at all. The suspension was my trick to not have the horse jammed up... well. When my arms were lowered, it looked better on camera, especially when I tried to lift myself, but couldn't, and with weights on the ankles... the futile struggle was more dramatically pleasing. It also looked more realistic, because it was real. I made the horse with a sharp edge, I didn't sand it, so I had the sharp edge of the wood cleaving me. In addition, I was being whipped. It was a very difficult scene, but I figured I wouldn't die or be horribly wounded, the things I do for art.

I'm really enjoying Stormrider's artwork, some of the scenarios and mechanics of the torture instruments in his tableau are similar to what I designed for Maleficarum.

There was a discussion a while ago about high heels, so I'm going to throw in my two cents, albeit rather late. Personally, I wouldn't think that a victim should be treated with deference regarding the cleanliness of the location, I was dragged through the mud in The Perils of Jane, and dragged across the floor on my face in Agent X. If the room's dirty, use it in the film! Sullying a poor innocent girl on a dirty concrete floor holds a lot of charm for me. My bare feet on the dirty floor of a warehouse, good times. I just feel like it's more realistic. And if someone left me with stiletto heels on, seriously now, they're a weapon. However, my fantasies run to the realistic and degrading.

And regarding the role of women in society, etc... When I starting making films of this nature I told a few of my friends. One of them, a fellow filmmaker, but not of this genre, was shocked, but not in a bad way. He thought that it was really strange that someone he knew, who went to the same small elitist college that he did (with all of the narrow values they hold), would do something like that. He told me that if the feminists at our alma mater found out they would, ironically, stone me in the town square. Another filmmaker friend, a woman, told me that she thought that what I was doing was feminist, because I was challenging the status quo.

As a woman in a modern age, I am happy that what I'm doing is my choice, that I can do what I want in our current society. It's a fantasy that I portray with my work, not a manual on how to live one's life. But it makes me rather angry when the government tries to take away my right to do what I wish with my body. And it saddens me when people can't step out of their narrow values and see that there's nothing wrong with what I do. It's very personal for me, I have these desires, I felt pretty bad about it for some time, and I've been able to break out of that, mostly by sharing my fantasies. I've received major criticism, hurtful criticism, but there's been enough praise and support to balance that out. No matter how I try, I can't grow a thicker skin, but I can hang onto the words of supporters and keep moving forward. Onward and upward!

And in that spirit, here's the first teaser of Maleficarum:

YikYakker - noticed your post on the cover of the day - I see nothing too tame Gimpwise - "He tied her - He locked her up - and used her" - seems the essence of Gimp worthy to me - besides, it has a certain nostalgia for me - as an adolescent running the hills and backwoods of western Kentucky the scene depicted was a common sight at the hovels of my relatives - many had their wives in such a predicament - well, it may have been their sisters or some other close relative - in any case it appears the fruit don't fall far from the tree.

Jane - that teaser trailer is what I call a show - so looking forward to the performances in your film - and hope the sales on release meet expectations.

Stay well all

I don't often get political here, since I don't think this is the forum for it, but I'm going to make a very brief exception: I was once a registered Democratic, but Democrats want to get into my pocketbook, and I don't like that. So I became a registered Republican, but Republicans want to get into my bedroom, and I don't like that. So, since I want government out of my pocketbook (except to the very limited extent that we need government in our lives to provide defense, fix the infrastructure and give us clean air and water, things that the private sector could not do on its own), and since I want government out of my bedroom (entirely, completely, no exceptions), I switched again, and am now more happily a registered Libertarian. [End of political rant.]

So thanks, Jane. You are as much a feminist as any woman I know, and provide strength to others to follow their own hearts.

http://ralphus.net/dailypic2011/Sister_in_Pain_by_MkG2k7.jpg

Put a pyre under these sisters in pain and light it and they would really be in PAIN.

Bill K.

John Galt: It kind of got lost in the shuffle, but thanks for your latest review. You really like Powershotz's stuff, don't you? From what I understand, Steve's next project is going to be one of those hidden camera shows in a doctor's office of a woman receiving a prostate exam. Actually, there's going to be 2 cameras and he's going to show us the entire procedure from both angles using a split screen. Pretty wild, huh? And I didn't even know women got prostate exams.

You know where to look for your link.

-----------------

Nia: Welcome to the forum, always nice when kinky chicks come out of hiding and make themselves known. And of course, the rest of the lads love hearing the female perspective. I think that brings our total females up to...4 now. 1196 guys and 4 ladies. Yeah, that's probably about right.

-----------------

DHT: Very cool clip, thanks. That was quite unexpected when the guy comes up the bound chick and smacks her with a right to the face, then when she mouths off, he punches her with a left. Yeah! That's a big ol' smile right there.

-----------------

High Horse: Likewise, your clip was a lot of fun. The whirling buzzsaw slowly moving closer between the splayed legs of a screaming damsel in distress. I wonder who was the first to come up with that concept? I could probably do a whole year of daily pics just on that theme alone.

-----------------

Jane von Detlefson: Ah Jane, what a nice teaser from Maleficarum. PG-rated and YouTube friendly, but still a very nice moment. Scream for me, baby!

It's great to see you back here sharing your opinions and points of view. We all love you here, and of course, anticipation is building with Halloween just 23 days away. Which leads me to...

-----------------

The Countdown to Maleficarum graphic: My concept, but Scribbler's the one who did all the work and put it together. The picture changes every day. You should see the animated version we started with. I'm still hoping we get to see a final version of that on the board, but at least this should whet our collective appetites for the most anticipated movie of its type since...well, probably since forever.

Friedrich, Baron von Folter

My latest "Gimp" inspired release

"3rd WORLD JUSTICE"

Starring Isobel Wren, Erika Stryker & Lucky Bellagio

Isobel & Erika were on their first big adventure vacation. They wanted to see what the "real" world looked like. So they took a trip to one of those "Stans" countries.

While on their vacation they were taking photos of what they thought was an ancient building. Turns out it was a clandestine prison used by the CIA to torture suspected terrorists & OCCUPY WALL STREET protesters.

The girls were taken inside & tied into a bondage position that was impossible to survive. Isobel's crotch rope connected to Erikas noose. If she did not stand on her tippy toes, she is strangling Erika. Erika's arms were connected to Isobel's noose. If she did not hold up her arms, she strangled Isobel.

The girls held out as long as their bodies could. When they finally died from strangulation, they hung lifeless until their capture cut them down.

Good Hunting

MaX CoXXX

The following drawing by Gary Roberts is from my private collection, commissioned artwork which I decided to share after enjoying it for some time for myself. It was great fun to imagine and "design" what I like to think of the, possibly, most painful "horse" to be used on the poor woman in that torture-chamber.

For those of you who haven't read any of the story yet, you will find that it combines numerous scenes of capture and severe torture of female spies and double agents (and attractive ones, of course -- photos accompany the story, as they do with all of my stories) with twists in the plot that will keep you guessing until the very end about who is really working for whom.

And for those of you who have already read the first four parts of the story, and have tried to figure out what is really going on, Fritz has provided a very satisfactory ending that answers all the questions. [I confess that I figured out only a part of it.]

I hope that you will enjoy the story, and, if you do (or even if you don't), please let Fritz know your thoughts. He worked very hard on it.

aka Exit: Death is Only the Beginning

In German, with English subtitles

Movie Info

Tonight I have a special treat for you, boys and girls. A few years ago, this Andreas Bethmann-directed epic earned the highly-coveted Ralphus Award for Best Mainstream Film of the Year, and deservedly so.

It has something for just about every GIMPer's tastes: gratuitous nudity, AOH bondage, barefoot bondage, tit-groping, choking, stabbing, shooting, whipping, copious nudity, snuff, muff, plastic dick rape, non-plastic dick rape, fellatio, chloro, gagging, drugging by syringe and in case I forgot to mention it, abundant nudity. And it even tells a story...

Manuela (Renee Pornero...yeah, and she's really a porn actress) is plagued by nightmares. Quick cutaway scenes of her encounter with a serial killer 5 years ago (in Vegetarians Forced to Lust Part 2, which I have not seen) appear in her dreams - we see them as flashbacks at the start of the movie and throughout.

Monique, unaware of what's happened, has to suddenly leave the club, because....well I won't bore you with that detail. The villain (whom I will henceforth call "Bertucci" - that's the pseudonym of the actor who portrays him) drags Manuela out of the restroom.

(Allow me to pause here to explain that Bertucci's modus operandi for the remainder of the movie is to drug his victims via syringe to render them unconscious as he moves them from one scenario to another. Back to the show.)

Manuela awakes to find herself lying face-up on the floor of a cramped, decrepit room with boarded windows and a door nailed shut. She is still clothed but her feet are bare and her ankles are chained together about 2-3 feet off the ground. The room is decorated with numerous small baby dolls suspended by barbed wire.

Then he produces his dead brother's skeleton, dressed in denim and sporting a plastic dick.

Meanwhile, Monique gets a message that purports to be from Manuela, asking her to come to a particular address (which turns out to be Bertucci's lodging).

When Monique arrives, the villain knocks her out, then strips, gropes, fondles her and ties her AOH. He taunts her with baby doll holding a knife. He runs the knife along her body, from neck and breasts to thighs and groin. Then he produces a syringe and plunges it into her crotch (implied).

She awakens to find herself naked and ankle-chained once again.

Manuela's got her mouth on Bertucci's dick and her eyes on the timer

Afterwards, Manuela feels shame because she was unable to hold out, was manipulated by Bertucci, and should never have believed his promise to let her go.

The rest of the movie involves Manuela's attempt to extricate herself from the situation. In most situations of this type, the girl would get loose, find some clothing (conveniently, getting her own garments back), and retain a shred of dignity during the breakout. Fortunately, that's not the case here - she spends the entire escape attempt sequence nekkid as a jaybird.

Movie pluses: All of the above is well done. The leading ladies give fine performances. The villain is cruel, sinister and manipulative. The movie is a rare blend of horror, sex, violence and bondage. The electronic score is repetitive but effectively chilling.

Movie minuses: Hate to quibble, but the villain's mask and Norman Bates-like mom complex are a bit of a turn-off. Some of the scenes were very dark, and with his mask and black clothing, Bertucci sometimes seems to melt into the background, a disembodied voice. The mask may make him look creepy or silly, depending on your point of view. Once his identity is revealed, the mask no longer serves any purpose. He's also completely bonkers. His dead mother sits in a rocking chair and "speaks" to him. And I mentioned his fucking brother.

It seems that Bethmann tried to make Pornero's character appear timid and mousy by using unflattering lighting, little or no make-up and ill-fitting clothes (which she doesn't stay in for very long, thankfully). I liked Pornero's raven hair and piercing blue eyes; but sweet-faced and slender Gebels was the more attractive victim, IMO. Pornero was about 27 when she made this movie, but she looks older; maybe that's what happens when you do almost two hundred movies on your knees with a cock in your mouth.

That said, I think a lot of GIMPers will enjoy this. It's the kind of movie many of us have clamored for: no-holds barred, non-stop perversion wrapped inside a plot.

There are a few major differences between the uncut and the "director's cut" (edited) versions; the uncut version includes hard core inserts, Pornero's fellatio cum shot scene, explicit displays of pussy (tortured and otherwise) and dick (plastic and otherwise), the entire Chinese water pussy-torture sequence, just to name a few that come to mind. It may be easier to find the shorter (by 21 minutes) edited version, in which case you will miss the aforementioned goodies, but still find yourself with a decent GIMPage flick.

I just wish I could tell you where to find it. Exploited Cinema once carried it, as did Amazon in days of yore. But it is well worth the hunt.
My Grade: A-

-----

Eda wrote:

...please let Fritz know your thoughts. He worked very hard on it.

I guess this solves the mystery of whatever happened to Fritz.

Bill K.

Ralphus - I agree, lose the blindfolds - if I'm not mistaken our executioner on the right already has his torch and is lighting up.

YikYakker - ditto your grade on "Exitus" - good film from Bethmann - I obtained a copy several years back but cannot recall the source - the last couple years have been on a quest for "Exitus II" to no avail - I'm not sure it's even available for the Euro market - very nice review - thanks.

Stay well all

Of course, as you noted, you can't really buy either version of this film online from any reputable source, so my advice is to seek it out online as a download. Hey, it's not available any other way, and you're denying yourself a great GIMP movie otherwise.

The direct link for your review is in my Homepage URL above.

---------------

Blindfolds and BATS: As much as I love Stormrider's stuff, I'll agree with the others that blindfolds have no place in this latest artwork. Absolutely no reason to have the girls blindfolded...in fact, this is one of those situations where you want them to have their eyes wide open so they see what's about to happen to them. I'm a firm believer in seeing the victim's scared eyes, and I can think of very few instances where a blindfold would be preferable in any bondage situation. Anyone else have an opinion on this?

---------------

Eda Chang: Congratulations on the new story. What, are you such a big shot author now that you don't even have to write your own stories anymore, you just farm off your sequels to other writers? Speaking of which, I think this explains what happened to Fritz, who hasn't been around for months. What, you got him locked up in your palatial estate, chained to a desk and kneeling over a typewriter on the floor? Girl, I'm sorry, that's just wrong. The roles should be reversed here. When Fritz comes back, I'm gonna have to show him the proper way to treat an Asian slave.

As Ralphus noted, it took a long time for me to wrap this one up; so long, in fact, that the link to Exploited Cinema that was embedded in the review has changed. At first, the link took you to the page for Exitus Interruptus, and the sad news that the movie was out of stock.

But now if you click on the link, you come to their page for Exitus II. Yeah, and they are selling it at a discount. So here's that link again:

Exploited Cinema

From the description, it tells the story of Monique's sister, who is trying to find out what happened to her. Renee Pornero is also in the movie, but does not have first billing.

What, are you such a big shot author now that you don't even have to write your own stories anymore...

Yes, she is. Rumor has it she's on the 2012 Pulitzer short list.

Ralphus also wrote:

Speaking of which, I think this explains what happened to Fritz, who hasn't been around for months. What, you got him locked up in your palatial estate, chained to a desk and kneeling over a typewriter on the floor? Girl, I'm sorry, that's just wrong.

Oh the humanity... the suffering... that woman is merciless. Actually, I'm chained up in Eda's palatial estate because it's the first stage in my complex plan to abduct her and chain her up in my palatial estate. Things went awry when she made me write stories for my daily ration of kibble bits.

Sorry to have vanished for most of the summer. I really just wanted to take some time away from being online, but come August I was clobbered with some unexpected medical issues and my absence was no longer by choice. Things are better now, so not only was I able to finish Choice Alternatives, but I can start posting here again.

And speaking of Choice Alternatives, my thanks to Eda for letting me appropriate her plot and characters to continue the tale, and for selflessly promoting the last few instalments. Admittedly, the story is not for everyone, but for those who like a no-holds-barred GIMP tale which is still wrapped in a recognizable narrative, please check it out. Together, all five parts make Choice Alternatives a veritable GIMP novella. As Eda mentioned, it wasn't easy - but I think I can safely say we both had fun writing it.

Since I'm shamelessly plugging my own work, I might add that John of PKF fame has filmed another of my custom scripts, the third in the Deadly Interrogation series. Those of you who have seen the first two will know what you are in for, but for others, the preview pics should provide enough hints as to whether this clip is for you. There's no electro-torture this time, so those who complained about the sparks in DI-2 will be happy, but the proceedings are still as grim as always. The best thing about DI-3 is that it features Nicole Oring as the ill-fated heroine - and she does an absolutely outstanding job.

YikYakker: Thanks for the first-rate review of Exitus Interruptus. In my opinion, this is Bethmann's second best film (after K3: Prison of Hell). Bear in mind I have not seen Exitus II or Terror Creek (his most recent film), but I've watched most all his other stuff. Had I not already bought Exitus Interruptus, I would have done so immediately after reading your review and viewing your vid-caps.

And most likely, after watching it, I would have felt just as I did after seeing it a few years ago: frustrated. It does have some incredible GIMP scenes. The actresses are far more attractive than those in Bethmann's earlier efforts. And he's come a long way technically: better photography, editing and effects in particular. But for reasons I can't articulate, he doesn't quite hit the sweet spot for me with this one. I wish I could better explain why I feel this way, but although everything about the video seems to cater to my interests, the sum of its parts still falls short. Perhaps it is the wonky pseudo-Psycho plot, or the claustrophobic, domestic settings... but something misses the mark. On the other hand, K3, which follows a conventional WIP storyline in a lush, jungle locale seems far superior.

By the way, the original Exitus Interruptus is still available here. And the sequel is on Amazon Germany here.

Poll: Arms overhead... definitely. Not only is it aesthetically preferable (a subjective opinion) but practically, it helps keep the victim where she belongs: on the damn horse. Has anyone realized that if a woman's arms are tied behind her back while straddling the inverted V, she can, at some additional discomfort, fall to one side and escape whatever pain is being inflicted on her nether regions? Sure, her tormentor can watch closely to make sure this doesn't happen... but if he's the only one on the job and it's time to grab a coffee or take a leak, his lovely pigeon could really make a mess of things.

Blindfolds: That's a tough choice for me. I want to see my victim's eyes as she suffers, but a blindfold or hood adds a note of realism which elevates the scene. I guess it depends on the context.

I posted that pic about two years ago on Renderotica and got pretty much the same response about the blindfolds. "Blah, Blah what's with the blindfolds?" All I can say is that (at the time) it seemed to go well with the scene (and I just acquired that particular toy and wanted to try it out). An experiment of sorts. I am happy to inform you all that I have learned my lesson. And no, I haven't put them in since...

re: Horse and arm binding... arms behind is the way to go. A close second is as jhlipton suggests: AOH and drop.

WOOT, Jane likes my artwork. Wow, I'm honored. I humbly request another teaser (that one was awesome)...God, this month is dragging. Anxiously awaiting Halloween release.

In a group situation, all of the above appply, with with this added twist: if all are blindfolded, then the subjects won't know who's being taken into interrogation and they won't know which one the guards are selecting after one is finished. And of course, if the subjects are going to be executed following the interrogations, a blindfold is mandatory in this instance-especially if the method is hanging, beheading, or shooting.

Also, I like the idea of a nice deep dildo (or two) pinning my butterfly in place (kind of hard to roll from side-to-side while the sharp edge works its agonies. Then some whipping to produce movement, or some electro on the dildo or a wire along the top edge would add some extra spice.

So I'm seeking some films on Amazon and I stumble across this one at the above link the other day - don't know anything about the bunch who produced it but it certainly seems to be some old school sleaze - unsure whether to pull the trigger on this one or not - more research necessary.

Stay well all

in my opinion arms behind the back is the better torture but the AOH Variant emphasis the body. And the alars are very sensitive ....

Things are better now, so not only was I able to finish Choice Alternatives, but I can start posting here again.

I'm glad to hear that you're better and that you have returned. Welcome back.

-----

John Galt wrote:

I have no opinion on arms vis-a-vis horse positions because the torment doesn't really do that much for me.

Same here. It's not my thing.

For that matter, I don't have any interest in burning-at-the-stake scenes, either. What kind of weirdo gets off on stuff like that?

For that matter, I don't have any interest in burning-at-the-stake scenes, either. What kind of weirdo gets off on stuff like that?

Guys, guys! Come on now. If the football team can co-exist with the glee club, if Christians and atheists can live together peaceably, if Democrats and Republicans can be civil toward each other and even pass laws in Congress (okay, I know, that's pushing it), then why can't the rape men and the torture men all just get along? Let's celebrate diversity, my brothers! Some of us prefer to tie girls up and rape them, others prefer to watch them suffer. Really now, it's all good. Good for us, that is. For them, it sucks, but then, we don't care, do we? Hee hee.

Weirdos? Hey, we're all weirdos. Call us whatever you like. Weirdos, perverts, creepers, degenerates, sick fucks. If we weren't, we wouldn't all be here, would we? Somebody say Hallelujah!

(all together now) HALLELUJAH!

Somebody say Hallelujah!

I may be, uh, preaching to the choir ... but let's just pray that when we get to the Promised Land in about 20 days' time, we find the whipping scenes have been done right.

A naked woman being executed in front of a throng of jeering/cheering people? That's brilliant.

With the NBA on hiatus, maybe a show staged like this will jack up the TV ratings.

-------

Poll Question: Arms behind the back or AOH?

The "arms behind back" faction makes a good case for that method being more painful. However, the degree of pain a fantasy woman might conceivably feel is not that important to me. I'm more interested in how she looks and acts in the situation. Overall, I tend to like seeing women stretched out, so AOH would be my preference. But as long as the girl is hot and convincing, it doesn't really matter to me.

Which is another one of my long, drawn out ways of saying I'm sitting on the fence. Hey, now there's an idea for a torture...

-------

Fritz: Welcome back, and thanks for locating those sources for Exitus Interruptus and Exitus II. I hate writing reviews of movies that folks can't get their hands on.

-------

Sloth: That business venture sounds intriguing to me. What the hell, the stuff I'm invested in now isn't doing anything.

-------

Flintstone: Thanks for clearing up the Justice Potter Stewart thing. You know, it's funny how the mind deals with memories...they just kinda get smooshed together.

Somebody made that statement about art, but for all I know, it could've been my fifth-grade teacher.

Looks like it has something for everyone, but the shaved head puts me off a bit.

Gee, you think so? That was absolutely disgusting. Not the bondage, nudity, ballgag and torture, that stuff is cool. But why shave the chick's head? That's about the most revolting creative choice by a director I can think of. Let's take a fairly nice-looking lady and then make her look like a Buddhist monk with tits. Not only does that make her sex appeal a big fat zero, it also makes it meaningless to dish out any kind of abuse to her later. I mean, what's the point when you just removed the most feminine of attributes a woman can have? You might as well be tying up a department store mannequin. Minus the wig, of course.

Guys, think about your audience next time. The ones who pay to see this kind of stuff? We want pretty victims. We don't want to see Uncle Fester!

We want pretty victims. We don't want to see Uncle Fester!

Certainly not.

Uncle Fester would make a cool villain though!

A naked woman being executed in front of a throng of jeering/cheering people? That's brilliant.

Not for me. Naked woman fine (and she looks good in the render), cheering people fine. But executed, or about to be implied, doesn't ring my bell at all, quite the opposite. Different strokes etc. I'd rather have Powershotz Steve show up in the render and stick an anal probe up her ass!

Charlie's Angels: ep. Angels in Chains

The girls head to Cuba to fight a kidnapping ring, but they are framed as soon as they arrive and are promptly thrown into a women's prison.

Written by Rick Masters :)

One can dream!

Uncle Fester would make a cool villain though!

Physically, I'm inclined to agree. He'd have to lose that goofy disposition, though. For anyone jonesing to see Fester as a slobbering, half-wit, torture-mad psycho, watch for "Scissorhands Pete" in K3: Prison of Hell. Here's Fester... I mean Pete, in the middle of one of his, um... assignments. Striking resemblance, no? And to help you get that image out of your head, here's a picture of one of his cleanly shaven victims. Sadly, she looks considerably worse about 20 brutal minutes later,

I must review this film some day.

YikYakker wrote:

A judge once famously said, "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." This I like.

Alternatively, Mr. Burns once famously said: "You know, I'm no art critic, but I know what I hate. And I don't hate this."

After enjoying the teaser for Maleficarum (thanks Jane!), I made the mistake of catching a Youtube wave and surfing through those suggested links that call out like sirens from the right margin. It only took four hops before I came across a bunch of these anomalies. Normally, this is not my thing at all. First, it's clearly consensual. Second, it triggers my squick reflex. Third, I'm not even sure it counts as GIMP as the "victims" seem to be getting off on their peril. Then again, I couldn't help but wonder how much fun it would be to play with some of these women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suwfgA0XQBQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5pytL-vDoY&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iu1InMTXIU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcx6f15I9fI&feature=related

Eda wrote:

I switched again, and am now more happily a registered Libertarian.

At the risk of going a little off topic, I couldn't let this rest. As much as I am a libertarian at heart, libertarianism apparently is not an alternative to the so-called left-right split offered by the Democratic and Republican parties. According to some, Libertarianism and authoritarianism are on an orthogonal scale which runs perpendicular to the D-R axis, allowing for an even more confusing way to categorize ourselves. No longer is it enough to say which team you are on, you have to find where you are on... the matrix (whoa).

You can plot yourself by visiting this site and taking the test. I'm curious if GIMPers gravitate to any particular quadrant(s). On the test, there are no specific GIMP questions, unfortunately, but if we could add them, what would we ask? (There... back on topic.)

On the other hand I present the following short excerpt from a long story Kirsten and I wrote years ago for a now defunct interogation site. This part was written by Kirsten and there was none better.

jhlipton please note the drop scenario. And the improvement on weights that Kirsten has come up with.

"Oh, god..." I am in your torture chamber.

Manuel points. "El caballo, senorita!"

Central to the room is an object I don't recognise. It looks like a large doll's-house without walls. A rectangular framework, on which is a sharply-pitched roof, its peak reinforced with metal. It is stained with rust. No, not rust...

"No!" I give a shriek of horror as it all sinks in. But I can't escape; I can barely even struggle as I am dragged further into the room. My mind is a blur. I barely notice the long chain dangling from a pulley high in the ceiling, a simple catch-hook at its end. My bound wrists, still behind my back, are secured to the hook. "Oh, God, not again," I whimper.

Together, the two men haul the chain. It clatters through the pulley, and my arms are wrenched up behind my back. I give a shriek as my muscles are wrenched in a cruel and wholly new way; agony explodes into my shoulders, and it feels as if my arms are about to tear from their sockets.

Again they haul, so that I am on tip-toes, my arms hurting badly. Another few seconds, and they heave again. My body is hauled into the air. I give a scream of pain. Somehow, my shoulders are not dislocated, but it is incredibly painful. I can barely breathe, my body almost hanging straight down with my arms twisted up behind me. I can feel my shoulder blades grating together.

But they are not done. Two more pulls, until my dangling toes are easily four feet off the floor. Manuel secures the chain's free end to a floor-hook.

"Let me down, please, let me down!" I wail.

Manuel laughs as he passed underneath me. "You ride the Horse, now." His hand briefly closes on my foot, and gives it a tug. I am set twisting, and I cry out with the pain that explodes through my shoulders. I am aware of them dragging the 'horse' underneath me. I look down in misery; its smooth ridge is now directly below.

"Please," I beg. "Please, get your boss, tell him I'll talk, please! Oh, God, please!"

Manuel just grins, and, with brutal nonchalance, grasps the chain that runs to the floor, then kicks its end free of its anchoring hook.

"Noooo-o-o!" I give a scream of terror as I plunge downwards. My feet hit the sharply-angled flanks of the horse, but they have no chance of stopping my fall. My bare soles slide off, and an instant later I land with a terrible crunch! - right on the base of my pubic mound.

For the first time in my life, I truly scream.

I have never felt pain as massive as this. It feels as if I have been split all the way to my ribcage; agony explodes up through my abdomen, focused with unbearable immensity right between my legs.

I scream again, with all of my voice. A long howl of agony. The chain has been secured, so that my arms are wrenched up behind me, how high I can't tell; but the strain in my shoulders is terrible, forcing me forwards. The restraint prevents me from shifting off the horse's cruel edge, but takes none of the weight off my agonised sex. I feel sure my clitoris has been crushed; waves of unbearable pain seem to rend my pelvic bone in two.

Slowly, over the course of five minutes or longer, the initial shock of agony subsides. But the pain is still crippling, an awful, splitting intensity between my legs. I cannot stay silent, but groan and wail. My body is running with sweat, the tears pour down my face.

By the time I am lucid enough to become aware of my surroundings again, I realise that Manuel has put heavy iron shackles around my ankles. Their chains run beneath the horse, where they are redirected to a simple winch. It is operated by a long handle at the front of the awful construction, which Manuel now cranks over, before my streaming eyes. At once, I feel the shackles on my ankles bite down into each foot; a second turn, and my legs are drawn taut.

"Please, stop!" I wail. I realise what will happen; any further turns of the winch will force me even harder down onto the metal edge. After a moment's hesitation, Manuel takes his hand from the lever. He spits on the floor, then, with a last glance at me, he leaves me to suffer astride the cruel horse.

Fritz - if you're keeping score, I took that little test that took about five minutes - I ended up almost exactly in the middle of the purple lower right quadrant - not quite sure where that puts me on the sick twisted pervert scale however.

John Galt - thanks for the heads up on "The Bunny Game" - it does look like it has a little something for every taste - and yes, the monk look is a bit disconcerting but if available I will give it a view.

StormRider - another fine work today - in this one I believe I'm seeing the sweat running down her chest - life is good.

YikYakker - your NBA hiatus idea is inspired - some years back before the days of cable and satellite when the number of shows was limited I recall reading a sci-fi story - the premise was at the end of each ratings period the bottom ranked show would do one final live performance during which the entire cast and crew would be executed - as luck would have it the losing show was "Battling Amazons" or something to that effect - all were bound and beheaded for our viewing pleasure - that's entertainment - is this day and age I would like to see that done to every liberal and conservative bitch on Fox News - of course being me, I'd have them hanged.

Stay well all

Bill K

Curiosity got the better of me and I took the Political Compass test as well. I ended up just left and below center of the green Libertarian/Left square. (X axis= -7.12 and Y axis= -6.56) Just me and Gandhi, and apparently he is even more authoritarian than I.

That doesn't surprise me. I took this test years ago and I finished just slightly to the left of Milton Friedman.

Not that this information is much help. Europe and Canada are addicted to big government and the U.S., in my view, is clearly headed in that direction.

I've said this before (and it has been controversial) but I'm not convinced that American GIMPers who favor more government in their lives fully understand what's at stake. You're very fortunate to have the First Amendment and you should fight to protect it, and that doesn't just mean criticizing Bible-thumping Republicans. There are plenty of pro-censorship types in all political parties.

I could be wrong -- after all, there's more to life than the freedom to watch porn -- but I suspect you Americans don't really want to reach the point where the government is confiscating your order of ZFX movies from CD Universe because the films offend someone's definition of "community standards."

There are underground methods for getting around the "obscenity" laws (particularly in the age of the Internet) but the most effective methods won't necessarily please the producers of GIMP content.

That means you have to support free speech for all consenting adults, including the things said by so-called hate-mongerers, "Islamophobes," etc. Freedom of speech is an all or nothing proposition. There ain't no compromise that's going to work out favorably for GIMPers, because a state that has the right to oversee what movies you watch will eventually have GIMP films in its crosshairs.

End of rant.

Anyway, this test is interesting but it's only partially on-topic, that being the final section that John pointed out where they ask you the sex questions pertaining to pornography. So use caution when following up because I don't want to see this develop into a full-blown political discussion. Most people don't come here to read about that stuff. I know I don't.

But getting back to that aspect of the test, is there anyone here who doesn't strongly agree with these 2 statements?

I was not very satisfied with the wording of the questions, but this instrument has probably been tested for reliability, so I guess it works OK.

The now-defunct U.S. News and World Report did a similar, but more sophisticated analysis of political views about 20 years ago. They identified several groups, or clusters, of constituencies - not just quadrants - based on the way people responded to statements about the issues of the day. But I won't go there.

Ralphus wrote: is there anyone here who doesn't strongly agree with these 2 statements?

Not me. But let's take them one at a time:

I'd rather not see any political discussion here that doesn't have to do with free speech related to our friends who are producers. Aside from which, I think that most of those political spectrum tests are crap - they work on populations, but not on individuals.

Back to the Gimp ...

Just wanted to pop in to give kudos to Stormrider. Very nice work. Even though this particular subject matter is not that much to my liking, I can appreciate the skill it takes and is still very interesting to look at. Working with Poser is a bit like herding cats. Have you done any of these scenes animated?

A Canadian wrote: Same here. It's not my thing. For that matter, I don't have any interest in burning-at-the-stake scenes, either. What kind of weirdo gets off on stuff like that?

I'm not really a BATS fan either. Burnt corpses are pretty nasty. That aspect of it is just not erotic to me. Certainly the bondage/torture elements are there, as well as some heavy duty struggling and screaming. While I don't dislike them, they hold no special place for me and if anything, are less desirable than other methods of torture or death. 

What I wonder is, do BATS fans relish the death and the corpse or is it good up until then and then its over? What is it about fire that is intriguing or adds a sexual dimension that maybe others don't see? Death by strangulation is more my speed, and somehow, it makes more sense to me. I like the prolonged struggling, gasping and the lack of the smoldering wreckage. Not big on stabbing or bloodletting either, at least not sexually. 

One thing about the BATS phenomenon is it actually makes me think I'm saner then at least a few people;) Of course I kid, we all have our interests. The psychology of this fetish I think is very interesting and a bit puzzling. 

Poll: I would probably go hands behind the back. More helpless and it does force a back arch and the accompanying chest thrust out. Of course AOH is nice too=). As long as it looked inescapable and uncomfortable I'm probably good with either.

John Galt wrote: I have no opinion on arms vis-a-vis horse positions because the torment doesn't really do that much for me.

Truthfully, I am not that enamored with horses either, though Jane on one might actually make me a believer. Probably a must have for any period piece involving medieval torture.

I think a horse scene would be more a lot more interesting if a spike or dildo of some sort was attached to the apex of the horse to go in the subjects pussy. It would have to be long enough to keep her from lifting off it, short enough to allow her to slide all the way down so she would still be cut by the top edge. Maybe a spike or protuberance to rub the clit as well. Then if she tried to lift herself she would have hump the spike. Of course it would require a AOH position. Toss in a butt plug (molten lead?) of some sort to keep the witch from taking a dump on the horse, lol=). And a gag to keep her from casting spells. Probably not very authentic, but I think it would make it a lot more interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a horse scene done with a dildo incorporated, but I have no doubt it's been done.

That's it for now...

Rick

A Canadian wrote:

Freedom of speech is an all or nothing proposition.

That's really the crux of the matter. This isn't about big government vs. anarchy, nor is it about the rights of the individual vs. the "common good". People will debate these issues till the end of time, and none will ever be resolved. But who would argue against "freedom of speech"? That seems like a no-brainer. What could possibly be wrong with letting folks write and say whatever they like?

The reality is this: everything wonderful and everything abhorrent in our society today came about because people wrote and said whatever they liked.

Long ago I saw some Republican pundit (sorry, can't remember who) interviewed about this very topic. His words, which I remember to this day, were as follows:

"Freedom of speech is the most fundamental of American freedoms. But... there are limits."

Limits? If freedom is all or nothing, why do we need limits?

Here's why: Try shouting "fire" (for no reason) in a crowded theatre. Publish a hate-filled diatribe and convince a sizeable chunk of the population to attack a group of people you don't care for. Conspire with psychopaths to plan an assassination. Use your celebrity to attack the down-trodden from the pulpit of your radio show or blog. Technically, this should all be legal if we had 100% freedom of speech. But are the potential consequences worth it?

Ralphus wrote:

But getting back to that aspect of the test, is there anyone here who doesn't strongly agree with these 2 statements?

I would guess most folks here would agree strongly with both statements. However, as YikYakker has pointed out, not everything that happens in the bedroom, even between consenting adults, gets a free pass. If one of the adults is mislead, drugged, mentally unstable, etc., they may well be consenting to more than they bargained for. Damn, another absolute crumbles to dust.

As for the legality of pornography, we're back to the "all or nothing" problem. If all pornography is legal, it would mean legalizing child porn. Even some of the weirdos in this crowd might find that problematic. Otherwise, someone needs to draw a line. And once you draw a line, there will always be some righteous individual who gets offended by whatever fetish and begins pushing the line back to the 16th century. Think about it. Are slobbering GIMPers who enjoy watching naked women burnt alive all that different from bug-eyed anarchists who eat babies for breakfast? And don't give me that fantasy vs. reality crap - Joe the Plumber can't tell the difference.

Freedom of speech? In your dreams.

John Galt wrote:

I ended up just left and below center of the green Libertarian/Left square.

Given your screen name, I suppose it makes sense for you to be in one of the libertarian quadrants. What surprises me is how many GIMPers are in the lower left. I was expecting most would be in the lower right, with a minority in the green square. Did anyone who took the test wind up in the upper quadrants? I suspect they may be the folks who disagreed with the porn and bedroom questions.

As for me, I am one unit above the bottom of the chart and two units from the extreme left (-7.75 and -9.03). I expected to be green, but not that green. I suppose that makes me an anarchic Democrat. In the past, I always knew I was a moron, but now it appears I'm an oxymoron.

By the way, add me to the list of people who are lovin' the Stormrider pictures. No blood, but very sexy all the same.

I'm not really a BATS fan either. Burnt corpses are pretty nasty. That aspect of it is just not erotic to me...What I wonder is, do BATS fans relish the death and the corpse or is it good up until then and then its over? What is it about fire that is intriguing or adds a sexual dimension that maybe others don't see?

Well, obviously, most people around here know that burning at the stake is my favorite fetish. And guess what? I think burnt corpses are pretty nasty, too. The aftermath of a woman being reduced to a ghastly charred image isn't appealing to me, either. Based on discussions over at StakeDamsels, a lot of us BATS freaks don't like that particular aspect of the fetish. But let me tell you what I do like.

I like the suspense, the anticipation. I like seeing the fear in the girl's eyes as she's sentenced, and tearfully forced to walk up the platform and to face what will certainly be a horrible fate. Then comes my favorite part, when she is tightly lashed to the stake in such a way that she knows escape will be impossible. And it gets better when it's followed by the lighting of the pyre and the smoke beginning to rise up around her. She's scared and desperate and squirms helplessly in her bonds, but the heat and the flames inch closer to her with each passing moment. Then she feels the first bite of the flames on her legs. She gives an agonized scream.

You don't have to take it the next step, where the woman is ultimately consumed. For me, it stops being fun once the girl stops being pretty and has her looks destroyed. Although for some, that's the "orgasm moment" of the BATS scene. I have no problem with that, and I totally understand it. But others of us just love the foreplay.

I think it is the fire (and the smoke, especially) that takes it up an extra notch for me. I think fire is exciting. It's also scary. And seeing a woman being tied up combined with fire is an unbeatable combination. Why do people like damsels in distress? Why do people like bondage and torture? It's the same principle, really. BATS is just taking it an extra step. I've said it before, it's the Ultimate Bondage Punishment.

I know I'm not the only one here who likes this fetish, although I'm likely in the minority, even on this board full of perverts and sick fucks. But if anybody else has the BATS fetish and wants to explain the appeal to Rick, this is your time to step up and share your opinion. Fortunately I had one more Stormrider BATS pic left to help you with the inspiration. Let's hear what you have to say.

Regarding BATS - two things come to mind. First, that I like burning by a device (eg irons) but don't like open flames attacking flesh. There's no logical reason for this, but that brings me to my second idea - how specific our fetishes can be. I think we can isolate the instant in a movie or story where we lose that erotic charge, even if it's been going perfectly for us - maybe the camera zooms in on a tiny tattoo, or the girl isn't quite the right race.

A funny thing I heard is the idea that back in the day, when it was so hard to get hold of porn, anything we could get our hands on was fine - now, with the internet, if a movie doesn't hit our fetish 100% in the first ten seconds, we're gone. When I look back over bondage magazines I bought before the WWW was a reality, I can barely get interested, although at the time they were lifechanging. Just a funny thought.

Bill K.

And not being into it either, I was mildly curious too.

I, like most bats fans, enjoy the peril imagery.

Bondage, nudity, terror, its all there.

Now add fire and heat to the mix, and it gets very erotic! (For those of us into that sort of thing)

A naked chick, bound to a stake, twisting and wiggling in her bonds, shrieking, screaming.

Desperately trying to free herself as flames surround and slowly close in on her, to me is very sexy.

Right up to the moment the flames begin to lick her feet, (I also have a bit of a foot fetish by the way)

After that, and the actual burning starts, it would get really ugly and no longer appealing.

We're not really into burning women to death, its just the fantasy peril imagery that goes with this type of scenario that does it.

Perhaps that's the problem, and perhaps why people struggle to understand the fetish because it leaves an ugly and horrid scene as its parting shot - a gruesome burnt corpse.

But take a step back for a moment, and consider the fantasy of seeing an innocent young woman marched to the stake, her first glimpse of the pole and wood pyre. Her instinctive realization and reaction to try and escape this horrible fate, her screams and panic. Now have her being tied to the stake, on top of the pyre base - elevating her to the gaze of all around. The chains crossing her heaving breasts as she still struggles and screams for help. The crowd watching, willing the scene along - eager for their pound of flesh. Once secured, she is helpless but still hopes for mercy to be shown. But as no mercy will be shown, and the first torch is plunged into the pyre, she now focuses all her energy on trying to escape....a futile but understandable reaction to her position. The crowd chant "burn the witch", over and over - even though they know she is innocent, they still are keen to watch. The flames begin to grow closer, slowly but surely, wrapping all the way around the outside of the pyre, warming her body - preparing her for what is to come...and then the first heat from the flames makes contact, and we watch her scream as never before.

Its at this point, the BATS fantasy for me is entirely finished. The flames have almost reached the point of no return, and there will be no escape.... or perhaps there will be a brave sole may still rescue this beautiful damsel. That's it for me...I decide in my mind if she makes it or not, but I don't want to see any more...my entertainment is over. Rescue her if you will, for me, this is enough, and this is what it's all about.

Hope this helps give an insight into this dark fetish, and maybe even shine a little light on it. If BATS wasn't thought of as an erotic position for a beautiful damsel to find herself in, then it seems TV and Hollywood still beg to differ.

Just the thoughts of a regular guy with a passion for BATS.

SD

I would love to understand about guys who have the foot fetish, for instance. Millions of guys have them so there must be something about feet that I'm totally missing. I have a good buddy who absolutely loves feet. I just shrug and smile and accept it, since hey, I have odd things that turn me on, too. I have a smoking fetish, even though I'm a non-smoker, hate smoking in general and would never even date a smoker. I just happen to think it looks sexy as hell when a woman smokes. We had a guy post here once who said he had a wristwatch fetish. Girls who wear wristwatches. I mean, what's up with that?

I can also understand the position of those who do NOT like BATS scenes, especially because of the aftermath, which we rarely see. Everyone has different tastes.

Personally, I prefer racking and whipping scenarios and don't pursue BATS scenes actively. But some I've encountered are enjoyable and well done, like the one in The Devonsville Terror. BATS scenes are sometimes tough to pull off convincingly, as we've discussed here in relation to Maleficarum. Perhaps that's one reason why there aren't more of them.

I think it's good that Stakedamsels and Ralphus and artists like Stormrider have done their best to preserve this genre. I think BATS has a legitimate place in the managerie of perversions that one can visit on the web.

1) Ah, the Libertarian quiz... "Forced" questions, Yes or No answers to complex subjects, this "quiz" is worth less than the Myers-Briggs. But the less I say about Libertarians, the happier we'll all be.

==================

2) I'm not a Christian, but I consider the words and deeds of Christ (from the Gospels and Acts) to be distinct from commentary on them (all the books of the Bible after Acts, as well as Augustine, et al). Looking at just those 5 books, women were treated as equals, much, much moreso than they were by society at large at the time. Mary Magdalene is often considered as an apostle, equal to all the others (and well ahead of Judas). Christ first reveals himself to a woman (a Samaritan, who were the "gay, illegal aliens" of their day). He rescues a woman from death by stoning, telling the men threatening her that they are no better than she is.

By and large, it was the "Not-Pauls" (the authors of the epistles attributed to Paul, but almost certainly not written by him) who started the whole anti-woman thing in the Christian church. I consider them to be the Anti-Christs.

==================

3) On a more on-topic note, I have an idea where blind-folds are mandatory:

Four women (or more, and relatives - mom-daughter or sisters - are best) are tied in an x-cross, each naked save for a blindfold. An equal number of men slide their hands up the women's thighs and thrust 2 fingers into each pussy. They finger-fuck the women until the pussies are dripping. Then the men move about randomly (one or two might even wind up where they started.

The women are forced to suck the cum-slimed fingers and then have to guess whose pussy they're tasting (they could do this by pressing one of 4 buttons, so none knows who the others are picking). If a woman guesses right, her tits are fondled and kissed - if not, she is tortured: 5 lashes, a jolt from a stun-gun, a punch to the belly, etc.

The game contunes until all women have been suffiently tormented.

This just one of many fun nights at Jhlipton's House of Horrors.

What is this sudden attack on bats lovers all about?

Perhaps this is directed at my "what kind of weirdo...?" question. In case it wasn't clear to some, I was ribbing our overworked moderator.

About BATS

I respect anyone's tastes in fetishes as valid, in spite of whether they concur or contrast with my own. That said, the defense I make for the BATS fetish is that it must be seen for how independent it actually is from the reality it's based on. Actual burning at the stake, as it was carried out in medieval times (and modern times in some instances) is devoid of sex appeal. A person ravaged by torture is wrapped to a post and burned alive for the spectacle of a crowd: leaving behind a charred corpse. Yet, in the imagination the scenario refines itself into the fetish that it is. The victim is beautiful, often stripped naked. The crowd is unanimous in her demise, which when you empathize with the victim, there is an appeal to her negative fame. She is hated by her audience to the extreme that they want to 'erase' her, painfully with fire. In the fantasy, the victim is gradually consumed by the flames, but we don't perceive the charring and scarring, only the obscuring of the body by flame, until she is completely converted to ash.

In this sense, her performance at the stake is eroticized: by removing the unappealing elements, the violence and the graphic destruction, we have a different scenario altogether. At any rate, this is how I experience the BATS scenario. Actual BATS is abhorrent to me: which I'm grateful for.

Bill K.

Although, thanks to the Internet, I've begun to develop an interest in hanging & strangulation, the act itself is over very quickly & I much prefer the drama that precedes it to the final act. The same is true of beheading; the sight of a neck threatened by the blade is more appealing than the blood & headless body. I know from the sites I frequent, that there are others who feel differently, but, as the dominatrix said: different strokes for different folks.

Also, as a history freak (as opposed to just your garden variety freak) the fact that BATS - as well as crux, the wheel, etc - can have an historical context has a special appeal. The inquisition & witch hunts provide a source of drama that really stimultes my interest. For this reason, modern settings, consensual snuff & serial killer stories just don't do much for me.

I hope this explains some of the appeal, Mr Masters. At least, this is what appeals to me. I know others have their own reasons for being attracted to this sort of thing, but, these are mine. And, may I add, that I also have enjoyed the ZFX products. I especially liked "666" & its sequel & the "South of the Border" series.

Canceling this was the most merciful thing they could have done! I don't blame the actresses though, it's the writing that blew. Angelina Jolie, Stacy Keibler and Jessica Biel couldn't have saved this show, unless they demanded completely different writers.

First of all, it has the same attraction as any ritualized killing, whether it be murder or sacrifice. That is important for me, as murder is not erotic. An audience and a standardized ritual of some sort are intensely erotic.

Second, it must be public. Humiliation and death must be witnessed, whether the crowd is hostile or sympathetic to the victim. Like a scaffold, the BATS must have some sort of performance to it, and the victim should be raised on a high pyre for all to see. No dark alley murders for me.

Third, yes the bondage involved. I love to see a body in tight bondage, and a man or woman at the stake should be bound tightly (don't want them to escape, do we?). The writhing at the stake is wonderful, and the utter helplessness of the victim is incredibly erotic.

So far, we have a tightly bound body placed high on a pyre, with witnesses gathered around and a ritualized event about to take place. Now we get to the metaphorical part, in which the fire is symbolic of orgasm. Yes, I know that in real life, the victim is not having an erotic time up there. But a slow burn - warming the body, tingling the skin, and slowly bringing it all to a raging climax - is an intensely symbolic act of sexual tension.

So it is this blending of a physical act and a metaphorical act that raises BATS to the #1 fetish position for me.

I misread what was said about bats fans and burnt corpses and now know no offense was meant. Sorry about that.

Not to worry -- there was no harm done, and it has been an interesting discussion.

I agree with Ralphus that I don't get the foot fetish thing, but the one that really puzzles me is the guys who are into scat.

I wonder what a scat website looks like? (Imagine the daily picture, if there is one). Or what kind of discussions take place....

Bondage Dave: The re-design of this website looks like shit.

Moderator: Thanks, I strained to get it just right.

I think the less I know about that fetish, the happier I'll be.

----

I didn't watch the new Charlie's Angels but I would say Minka Kelly looks fine in those photos (which include the logo from a Canadian network, which is curious). Maybe I should have watched it.

van_hefty: Actual burning at the stake, as it was carried out in medieval times (and modern times in some instances) is devoid of sex appeal. A person ravaged by torture is wrapped to a post and burned alive for the spectacle of a crowd: leaving behind a charred corpse.

Alexander Dumas (of the "Three Muskeeters", "Man in the Iron Mask", etc.) was a big history buff and wrote a huge book called "Celebrated Crimes". One of the "criminals" is Joan of Naples, who is more a victim of youth and poor politics than anything. After she is driven from power, several of her relatives were tortured and killed.

The relevant part of all this that two of her nieces (who we'll say were over 18) were stripped to the waist, flogged with whips which had metal tips and flung onto a fire. I couldn't help thinking of you-all as I was reading this.

It is a tremendously fun book, full of people both well-known (like the Borgias), semi-well-known (like Martin Guerre) and not known at all.

===================================

Eda: Afraid that Minka Kelly is not going to be the "bondage" girl of Charlie's Angels. Nor is anyone else. The show was just cancelled after four episodes.

Must have been those same Puritans that got "Playboy Club" cancelled. Or maybe both just got really bad ratings and the protests had nothing to do with the cancellation.

===================================

RoxanneBlue: Second, it must be public. Humiliation and death must be witnessed, whether the crowd is hostile or sympathetic to the victim. ... No dark alley murders for me.

Third, yes the bondage involved. I love to see a body in tight bondage.

Sounds like you would love the House of Horrors. It's a thing I came up with on DarkFetishNet for the torture, rape and murder of young hotties. There is a live audience (some of whom are chosen to participate in the evening's festivities, as well as a live Internet audience (we also sell streaming and recorded videos). Lots of bondage and very public (we're very proud of our lighting -- soft but no shadows.

===================================

Canadian: I didn't watch the new Charlie's Angels but I would say Minka Kelly looks fine in those photos.

In the second or third episode, they actually let Kelly get beat for a while before she subdued her assailant. Between that and the hot reporter restrained to a chair and stoned out of her mind, it was not too bad for the kind of show it was.

* * * * *

For any voyeuristic GIMPers who enjoy seeing celebrities get the bondage-and-rough-sex-gangbang treatment, the latest Sex and Submission update features Joslyn James, the Tiger Woods mistress who enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame early in 2010 when she was outed and then she released text messages from Tiger in which he hinted at (and specified) "dark" sex acts. Choking and rough sex? Is "dark"? Give me a break, mainstream media morons.

Warning: She has ugly tattoos and shaved the sides of her head in a very unflattering (if not downright off-putting) way.

Too bad Kink.com doesn't have a Tiger Woods look-alike in their stable of studs, or they could have taken the shoot to a whole 'nother level. Starting with a putter and working up to a 9 wood (which is a big one, right? because I don't play golf). But as it is, she plays an uppity and insulting boss who gets used and abused by two fed-up employees. So it is a role-play rape in the Kink.com fashion.

Bill K.

------------------

sirstef wrote:

Greatly enjoying the stories. Can't imagine how one person can be so creative. Any made into movies?

When you say one person, are you referring to the stories of Eda Chang? There's also multiple stories in the More GIMP FICTION section by Master Wryter. Assuming you mean Eda's work, plans are underway to eventually film one of her stories as a movie by the people behind Red Feline. No official date yet, but it's upcoming. I'm sure we'll hear more about in the future.

------------------

John Galt wrote:

I've read some recent comments that the burnt body is not necessarily part of the BATS mystique. Did anyone who watched Don't Go in the House find the scene ruined by showing the denouement?

Well, not me, I love that scene. It's probably one of the most realistic-looking burning scenes I've ever seen, although it was obviously done with a mannequin. At least, I think so...although the actress never made another movie again, did she? Hmmmm....

You do make a good point, we see a silhouette of a crispy critter with wisps of smoke still coming off her body when they return to the scene after initial burning. I've always kept that part on my compilation disk, I'm not sure why. The blackened figure doesn't resemble the original actress, maybe that's why it never bothered me.

------------------

Charlie's Angels canceled: Too bad, although I never watched the show. They were making a habit of tying up and abusing Minka Kelly (twice in 4 shows) so ending that doesn't make me very happy. Hopefully the rest of the series will be released on DVD so we can see what we missed.

------------------

Bill K. asked:

Ralphus is that terrific jail house poser hot nude picture still Stormrider's art?

Of course, think I'm going to stop running Stormrider artworks as long as he's getting multiple comments every day? Eventually I'm going to run out, though, just warning you all now. But there's plenty of more good stuff to last for a while more.

------------------

Bman: I know you directed your question to Rick, but I'm assuming you're referring to Amber Bliss's heated screwdriver torture scene in ZFX's Goon Squad 2. I'm not sure which trailer you saw, but I can tell you in the actual movie, Amber Bliss screams her ass off (through her ballgag, which sounds even better) while she's being burned in that scene. It's a really good scene; in fact, all of Amber's scenes are standouts in that movie.

Hard to believe that 2 years have gone by since that came out. Latest I heard from the Rickmeister, he said his new animated movie should be out this year. At the time he said October or November, so I'm guessing February or March :) He has a history of missing deadlines, but the wait is usually worth it.

As far as BATS goes... not that keen on it... or any tortures that result in death. Death by fire is certainly unpleasant, and doesn't give me any thrill at all.

A few comments on your comments:

Bill K wrote: What is this sudden attack on bats lovers all about? I don't get it. Why? To me it about the peril not the death.

I'm sorry if it came off that way. I think it's interesting and was trying to gain understanding, not find fault with it. Also, I have no problem with death fetish or any fetish, unless someone is really being injured, killed, or underage people are involved. While I like the BATS scenario (and just about any DiD scenario), its just not THE scenario for me. Anyway, thanks for your comments.

Ralphus wrote: Why do people like damsels in distress? Why do people like bondage and torture? It's the same principle, really. BATS is just taking it an extra step. I've said it before, it's the Ultimate Bondage Punishment.

I can see how a BATS scene has some appealing elements. It is a death carried out in an acute fashion with a lot of buildup and drama. The aftermath is not part of the fantasy, more an end to the means. One thing for sure, there is probably nothing more painful than burning.

For some reason, this scene does not resonate as strongly for me as say, a rack scene or a flogging. I guess to me it seems the BATS part is almost anti climactic, antiseptic portion of the torture ritual, even though it is, in fact, the climax. For me it symbolizes an end to the fun :P. It is very dramatic and there is a sexual element but it's subtle. Of course the fantasy could be far different than how these acts were actually carried out=). I find it interesting that while I think our tastes in torture (and tattoo free women) is frequently the same, here is an area that we are divergent. Thanks for giving your take on it.

Narraku wrote: Also, as a history freak (as opposed to just your garden variety freak) the fact that BATS - as well as crux, the wheel, etc - can have an historical context has a special appeal..... I hope this explains some of the appeal, Mr Masters. At least, this is what appeals to me.

I appreciate your comments and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can see how the historical aspect adds to the authenticity and appeal of the BATS concept.

To all BATS fans:

Thanks for all the great responses. I believe I have gained greater understanding of the BATS scene and I'm sure you have educated a few others as well. While I may not fully share your passion, I can get my head around it far better. Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts so eloquently.

A Canadian wrote: I suspect you Americans don't really want to reach the point where the government is confiscating your order of ZFX movies from CD Universe....

FROM MY COLD DEAD HAAAAAANDDDDSSSS=)

Bman wrote: This question goes out to Rick and all you other movie producers. Is the startle response to being touched with hot objects against some censor rule? I've seen the new trailer for your newest movie and it depicts a heated rod touched to breasts. NO startle response from victim, No sudden recoil away from the peril, No begging not to do it again. This seems to be the case in whatever depictions I've seen over the years. Is it just a direction flaw or is it a legal limit that it would cross??

No, there is no law against reacting to burns in a movie. I assume your referring to Goon Squad 2. Amber Bliss is in a very stringent position, AOH with legs spread wide, on tiptoes impaled on a dildo. Through most of the scene she is stretched extremely tight and gagged so her ability to move is pretty limited. I think its a pretty good scene, but of course anything can be improved. Incidentally, Amber does beg, cry and scream during this scene, but she's ball gagged and drooling a lot so it's fairly unintelligible. For those unfamiliar, you can check out the trailer here. Below a few captures from the scene.

Getting those sharp reflex reactions is good from a "selling it" standpoint, but from a filmmaking standpoint it needs to be balanced with the ability to incorporate technical elements and get the shot, particularly on tight shots. A big reaction will probably go out of the frame or be more difficult to frame and the contact with the hot object will not be clearly visible. We are trying to get a mark on there as well. Those are things I consider. It's a bit of a balancing act.

That's it for now...

Rick

Has there been any decision on the early release sale of the DVD before the Halloween premiere of Maleficarum so all of us can get it in the mail to view it on same time/day Halloween?

Bill K

Actual burning at the stake, as it was carried out in medieval times (and modern times in some instances) is devoid of sex appeal. A person ravaged by torture is wrapped to a post and burned alive for the spectacle of a crowd: leaving behind a charred corpse.

Most of us agree that the violence we dream about in our fantasies would actually repel us were we to witness it for real. Yet for centuries, works of art and literature have depicted some incredibly graphic scenes of rape, torture and death. Today, technology allows us to represent the most horrific spectacles in ways which make the facsimile indistinguishable from reality. Why do we go to so much trouble to show what we claim to loathe?

Obviously, some of us find it entertaining, and for whatever reasons, often sexually stimulating - so long as we know it isn't real. And though it's hard to imagine a (simulated) charred corpse as anyone's masturbatory delight, I'm sure, given the range of fetish interests, there is a tiny minority who believe a BATS video without a lingering pan over a crispy corpse is missing the money shot. If the bug-crush crowd is able to find sexual satisfaction by watching Jiminy Cricket squashed by stilettos, anything is possible. So I'm sure a BATS scene, faked but faithful to an actual burning, may have sex appeal for some.

YikYakker wrote:

I don't think it's all that unusual (and certainly not unacceptable) for some folks to have a BATS fetish. Fire has always held a mixture of fascination and fear for us humans since day one. When you throw a naked, terrified, helpless woman into the situation, the "foreplay", as Ralphus and others have described it, has all the elements of other GIMP scenarios, and more, like the jeering crowd.

I think this is why some of us find it hard to imagine a burnt corpse as being erotic. By the time the flames have died down, most GIMPers would agree the fun is gone. The victim is no longer a beautiful, naked woman, bound and terrorized, writhing in front of a roaring crowd. She looks like a giant burnt roast - unrecognizable and not very enticing (except to those mentioned above).

That's probably why this topic has generated so much discussion. Unlike most other perils, the BATS fantasy imagined by aficionados is very different from the real thing. Though we often wish GIMP scenes were more realistic, most of us want BATS scenes to be stylized, trimmed and sanitized to make them easier to consume.

Bman wrote:

Is the startle response to being touched with hot objects against some censor rule? I've seen the new trailer for your newest movie and it depicts a heated rod touched to breasts. NO startle response from victim, No sudden recoil away from the peril, No begging not to do it again. This seems to be the case in whatever depictions I've seen over the years.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, PKF recently released Deadly Interrogation III, a custom video I wrote for John M. In it, there is a scene where the heroine has her breasts burned with a hot iron. It could be a matter of opinion, but in my view, she appears a bit startled:

And to my knowledge, no censors have complained.

Ralphus wrote:

It's probably one of the most realistic-looking burning scenes I've ever seen, although it was obviously done with a mannequin.

A while back I read an interview with the director of Don't Go in the House, Joseph Ellison (who went on to make just one more film before becoming a musician). He explained that the burning scene was done by using mirrors to overlay a fire (burning off to the side) with the shot of the actress. The scene could not have been done with a mannequin as the woman struggles quite realistically once she is engulfed in flames.

Carnyx: Well, it took six weeks, but I think I've found your comic book whipping scene. Do these pages look familiar?

http://bcotd.com/Hot_Shot_No1_1975_George_Perez_art_p19.jpg
http://bcotd.com/Hot_Shot_No1_1975_George_Perez_art_p20.jpg

Carnyx wrote: hi everyone- here is the first one. it might be the best comic book whipping i have ever seen. i found it in late 1975. i think it was to cash in on the charlies angels craze. there was this elite group of scantily clad women crime fighters. one of them went undercover in some criminal organization. she was revealed to be a spy by this crooked black detective who was working for the group. they then cut to a scene where the spy is being whipped topless by a crazy topless woman who is getting her pleasure from this. she has an ugly birthmark on her face and she keeps telling the girl to beg for mercy which she refuses to do. she is finally rescued by a crime fighter with a russian accent. the crazy woman tells her she'll make her beg for meercy too, but the russian tells her she is a very sick woman. please let me see this scene again before i die! thank you everyone. robert

(not talking about daily pic.)

Really great.

I found free stuff from them:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/07255128396110977707

and
http://fantasti.cc/user/flexislave

and
http://flexislave.blogspot.com/

Regarding the teaser to the roasting scene...I'm a bit torn, but it's hard to make much of an impression with a 14-second snippet. The audio is of flames, but from what I understand, it's just hot coals underneath her, right? Coals wouldn't make noise. That comes across as false to me right away. But again, I'm watching the scene out of context, maybe I'll believe the illusion more when I see the actual scene. I certainly hope so.

So Wednesday is the big day, when they decide whether to accept Maleficarum for a theatrical release. I think any answer you get will be a positive thing. If they allow it, you'll see how the movie plays to a paying audience. If they reject it, I would definitely use that to market the movie...the movie that was deemed too realistic and too harsh for theaters! They could do doing you a favor if they decide not to book it. Be sure and let us know what happens.

----------------

John Galt: Great review of Don't Go in the House. As mentioned before, that scene does it for me every time. But I'm going to reject the contention that the burning scene was not shot with a mannequin. I just pulled out my copy and looked at it again. There's absolutely no way that's a real person. As far as the realistic movement, all you have to is slightly twist the burning figure from above to have it appear to be moving. Same with the shot of the burning hands, which only appear on screen for one second. It's a very impressive illusion, but wouldn't be hard to pull off that way. I would love to be proven wrong, anybody have a link to this interview with the director?

The direct link to your review is in my Homepage URL above.

----------------

Bill K: I have Racing the Rain on my hard drive but there's no way I would be able to afford the bandwidth to host it. It's really an incredible achievement, because Matmos took live action (non BATS) video footage and inserted it into a totally digitally recreated fire setting. It's not realistically believable since you can tell the flames aren't real, but it's quite impressive nonetheless. Here's a still from it:

----------------

We have a new story in our GIMP FICTION section. I haven't read all of it yet but what I have seen, I like a lot. It's was e-mailed to me by one of our posters named Osouk and it's called "INTO HELL". If you guys are into electric shock torture, this would be a good one to check out. Here's the direct link:

http://ralphus.net/special/stories/moreauthors/intohell.htm

He said if people like it, he has more he can share with the forum.

Ralphus - Regarding the second teaser with the roasting, that is direct sound we took from the coals, they make that snap crackle pop sound, much like rice crispies. We had over 150 lbs of coals underneath me, when they become red hot, they make that crackling noise for about an hour until they die down. Believe me, I was there, watching them the entire day, two days of shooting, in fact. Small amounts of coals, like the amount used in a hibachi, don't make that sound, because they disperse the heat at a more rapid rate. Why do I sound like a mad science teacher?

I'll put my two cents in about BATS later, I'm exhausted after working all weekend, no rest for the wicked...

It's hard to imagine what it must have been like to be suspended over a pit of burning coals like that, enduring the heat and the smoke. I guess we'll find out more when we get to see the scene and hear you talk about it. In a way, I'm almost looking forward to hearing the commentary track even more so than the movie. Anybody else feel that way?

Another reason (other than really wanting to lie on the couch right now with an audiobook) that I don't want to gab too much about the BATS and the roasting is that it'll be old news by the time ya'll listen to the commentary and whatnot.

I believe I was the one that asked why there was no whip and torture marks on Stormrider's art but I was only curious to why not. But in the case of today's picture it does fit for sure and that you could call the whipping marks rape foreplay.

As the looking forward to the commentary track goes, it's added gravy to me or in this case Jane roast scene BBQ sauce. I wonder if Jane had that barbecued smell as she was being spit roasted but I'm sure it wasn't that hot or was it? If so that's got to be an erotic feeling to smell yourself cooking.

Bill K.

Uncontrolled sex was a source of disease like no other thus "the wages of sin are death". Prostitutes were cast out of villages because they carried within the evils of such sins. Simply put, sex caused many to go extremely ill and die.

Sorry, but both of these are incorrect. There's overwhelming evidence to refute the theory that Jewish dietary laws came from observation. And prostitution flourished in most societies -- autocratic patriarchies tend to send it underground to better control the population.

===============================================

I hope the commentary to Maleficarum will be subtitled / Closed Captioned. I hate when DVD extras aren't CCed -- deaf and hard-of-hearing folks aren't as interested in the extras as anyone else!

Bill K.

As for red-hot tongs being used, they were mainly used for straightforward punishment purposes: there's an episode of The Tudors where a leader of a revolt against Henry VIII has a red-hot poker shoved up his ass (before being hanged, drawn, and quartered). No doubt others who met that fate had the poker treatment administered-along with the rack-before receiving their offical punishment.....

Thanks for all the kind words regarding my artwork.

http://www.deviantart.com/

It free to join to view and copy pictures there but not sure about artist members cost. I guessing that it is a lot less costly than having your own site or joining a pay site. You can join Stakedamsels forum but it a fiery peril only site which is problem with most free sites there only want a certain type of peril art.

Bill K.

jhlipton: I think Margot was referring to the dietary experiences of humans thousands of years before the founding of Judaism. It's also interesting to note that Islam has similar restrictions about eating pork. One theory is that the dry climate of the Middle East is not favorable to pig-farming - which requires large, continuous sources of water. So the practice was discouraged, if not downright reviled. It's yet another example of a mundane problem getting layered over with social and religious considerations. (Don't worry, I'm going to make this relevant to GIMP).

This theory is put forth in a fascinating book called Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches which also provides, among other things, rare insights about witch-hunting. GIMPers will find that very interesting (as will others).

Margot: It's great to have you stop by again with more goodies for us. And that part about how all of you got together was very intriguing. But I'm wondering what it was that led an anthropologist into movie-making. Maybe there's hope yet for someone with a Sociology degree like me.

John Galt: Thanks for filling that hole in the review database with your write-up of Don't Go in the House. Great caps, too - these look sharper than the images in my copy of the movie.

Couldn't agree with you more about that scene and the movie as a whole. A terrific job by the actress in an otherwise lackluster flick.

I thought that showing the charred body after the first flaming helped set up the later scenes, where all you saw were the crispy critters, but you understood how they got that way. Still, it would have been nice to see more naked victims and fewer aftermath shots.

Ralphus and Bill K.: Thanks for "telling and showing" us about Racing the Rain. That's a fine-looking cap.

I didn't find the movie on IMDb. Is it available anywhere, and more importantly, do you think it has enough GIMPage to make pursuing it worthwhile?

Ralphus and Bill K.: Thanks for "telling and showing" us about Racing the Rain...I didn't find the movie on IMDb. Is it available anywhere, and more importantly, do you think it has enough GIMPage to make pursuing it worthwhile?

That is because it was never a movie YikYakker. Matmos was one of the first manip bats artist to post his manip bats art on www in the 1990s and lot of today's manip bats artist say they were inspired to do their bats artwork because of his work.

The only place I know you can download it is Stakedamsels.com site. It's only one minute long and not formatted for DVD TV viewing, only PC viewing.

Bill K.

But I'm going to reject the contention that the burning scene was not shot with a mannequin. I just pulled out my copy and looked at it again. There's absolutely no way that's a real person.

So you think I'm just making this up? Before you posted this, I even e-mailed you about the article and what magazine it was in, but that still wasn't good enough? Man, you have some serious trust issues.

Anyway, I was all smugly set to prove you wrong when I discovered the Ellison interview does not appear in any recent issue of Video Watchdog, which is where I thought I read this. Quelle surprise. I next checked VideoScope, which covers similar fare, but NFL there either - though I still haven't exhausted that route. I took a cursory glance through the recent issues of another half dozen film mags I subscribe to and sadly have not found what I'm looking for.

So now I can't be so smug... yet. I do know it was an interview in a hardcopy magazine (and I rarely throw them out, which is why this is no maddening), that it was published in the last two years or so, and that aside from Ellison's work on DGITH, it also covered his subsequent music career and featured a picture of him in his studio. If this rings a bell with anyone, please let us know and help me put the mannequin obsessed midget in his place.

Yet even without the smoking gun, I just don't see the actual footage supporting the mannequin theory as Ralphus claims. First, the body moves in a very lifelike way, not like a GI Joe doll or even a stuffed marionette. In particular, watch her head and hands when the fire first hits her. Second, the shape of the body precisely matches the um... contours of the actress. Third, how do you explain the close up shot of the hands, which clearly are real and similarly engulfed in flames. If the filmmakers used the composite technique here, why not for the full body shot as well?

Finally, after expanding my research to include my collection of British 'zines, I was thrilled (and somewhat surprised) to find a Joseph Ellison interview. Imagine my dismay when it turns out not to be the one I was hunting. Nonetheless, it's still a great read and includes other interesting tidbits about the film, including the real name of the actress who plays the ill-fated Kathy. You can read it here. By the way, the article is from Is It Uncut? #23.

Scribbler wrote:

There's one image I could've gone my whole life without seeing.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume you are referring to the picture I posted of Deadly Interrogation III (as it's the last image before your ambiguous post). If so, I'm not sure what to make of your comment, but if I offended your tender sensibilities, my apologies. Frankly, I thought GIMPers were made of sterner stuff. And to be honest, I don't see how what I posted is that different from the pics featured in Margot's update or Rick's Goon Squad 2 caps. What next? Do we now have to self-censor what we put up here to keep from offending those who think a good peril scene involves feathers and ice cubes?

And if the limb I went out on just snapped because you were referring to a different image, please tell us which one it is so I can defend whoever posted it.

John Galt: Thanks for your excellent review of DGITH. I completely agree with your assessment, especially with respect to the relative GIMP discrepancy between that one scene and the rest of the movie. It made me wonder what other films have a single, incredibly intense, over the top sequence like this, and virtually no other female peril worth noting.

One that comes to mind is Cannibal Ferox, which features Zora Kerova hanging around in a rather unique manner, but nothing else of interest to us (although there are a few icky parts where males are tortured). There's also the dunking scene in Il Camorrista (although the complete version of the film may have more). Any others that fit the bill? I'm not talking about movies which have just a single GIMP scene (there's millions of 'em), but those in which that single scene is relatively extreme and stands out like a golfing gorilla because not one other female character suffers so much as a broken nail.

Simon: I guess you and Scribbler won't be bonding any time soon. Click on the Deadly Interrogation III image and it will take you to the PKF online store at Nicheclips. There you will see more details and some preview pictures. Unfortunately, you now need to be a Nicheclips member to view the descriptions as well as to buy the videos. I believe membership is free, though.

Also, if anyone is interested (and no one takes offense), I could post the full script I submitted to John. That way those who are considering custom videos can see how close a good producer gets to capturing the original idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6-xuGn40io

I believe it to be the only manip type bats video created. Ralphus is that correct? Not sure about other type peril manip videos were created either but think there would be some out there. Right?

Bill K.

And if the limb I went out on just snapped because you were referring to a different image, please tell us which one it is so I can defend whoever posted it.

Yep, that's the image.

No need to apologize, you can post what you want (as long as the moderator approves). I once posted an image the moderator removed.

No, you can't paint all GIMPers with the same we're-all-made-of-the-same-sterness brush. Some of us, OK, one of us, is a more lightweight GIMPer than others.

To be honest, I see a difference to the other images you mention above. If you don't see that, that's fine, not everyone sees things in the same way. Not everyone has the same sensibilities. I once had this conversation with Ralphus. Sometimes there's a horrible accident and there's blood and gruesomeness all around. There are people tasked with the job of cleaning up after such an accident. I'm grateful that people exist that can do that job. Cause it's needed. However, I'm not one who could do it, and that's just the way it is.

Do you have to self-censor? No, you can do what the fuck you want. And others, includiing me, can comment. Would I prefer the more gruesome images were text links to images, so I don't have to see them, but others who want to see it, are of sterner stuff, can click on the link and see the image just fine. Sure, I'd go for that. But since I'm the only lightweight GIMPer here, there's no need to do that. Do what you want. Far as I know, this is that kind of forum. Screw the lightweight GIMPers, there's only one of me anyway. :)

The direct link to your review is in my Homepage URL above.

------------------

Fritz wrote:

So you think I'm just making this up? Before you posted this, I even e-mailed you about the article and what magazine it was in, but that still wasn't good enough? Man, you have some serious trust issues.

Ha! I don't trust anyone who's taller than me.

It's not a matter of trust, I just really want to see the evidence, because as much as you say it's impossible that was a mannequin, I can make the same arguments that it was. In the initial long shot where the flame is heading for her, notice the frozen expression on her face, which stays that way from start to finish. Yeah, it's only about a second-long shot, but in freeze-frame, she looks a little different from the live woman we saw earlier. And the movement I mentioned, even in the brief shot of the hands, could be explained away by controlling the action from above. Everything is obscured because of the dancing flames and you don't really get a clear look. Like I say, I just want to be proven wrong. Either way, it's a very impressive illusion.

------------------

Bill K.: Thanks for the video link for Racing the Rain. You're a braver man than me for putting that on YouTube. I just recently had one of my videos removed by YouTube's censors for "nudity and/or sexual content" (it had neither). Someone didn't like it and flagged it, and off it went. No way I would post a video of a naked women being BATS like that, even though I've seen a lot worse on YouTube.

------------------

Scribbler wrote:

No need to apologize, you can post what you want (as long as the moderator approves). I once posted an image the moderator removed.

If I recall correctly, I didn't remove it but changed it to a link instead. That was back in our Tripod days and I was fearful about what would be allowed once the posts were updated to the archives. Of course now, we have a lot more freedom.

Regarding the posting of "squeamish" images, we don't want to offend anyone and trust me, you are NOT the only lightweight GIMPer here. I got taken to task when I posted some bloodless vidcaps of a woman being sawed in half earlier this year. The intention was never to mock any of our more sensitive readers or rub anyone's nose in it. The thing is, we have some pretty harsh images that are posted every day on this forum. Not just artworks, but vidcaps, too. If that branding pic is too hard, what about the bloody stills of Jane from Maleficarum? Not to mention images of her being burned at the stake? Where do you draw the line?

Bill K. - thanks for the link to that manip - quite well done considering the limitations - any interested Gimpers need to grab a look before the YouTube Morality Police whack that one.

And now to discover we may pre-order "Maleficarum" - this day is beginning nicely.

Stay well all

If Fritz' picture is the dividing line between "lightweight" and "heavyweight" GIMPers, then count me as one more "lightweight" GIMPer lurking about. :)

As you say; people are free to post what they want, within Ralphus' rules. We can't all have identical tastes; that's why the board exists in the first place!

My personal line is around the "marks" level. Pain and torture WITHOUT marks -- all good. A few marks is OK, if it emphasizes the pain/suffering aspect. Too many marks is a distraction, and blood/gore/feces/vomit is all gross and an active turn-off.

That's me; that's my kink. Helplessness, suffering. Bondage and nudity are good; they CONTRIBUTE nicely. But even those aren't NECESSARY -- it's the female helplessness I enjoy. (Kink.com is almost always good, except for when they play with needles. HOM with their "love bondage" is boring as hell; the models aren't supposed to ENJOY it!)

[All the talk about BATS fascinates me. In my head, there's the build-up -- the threat, the fear, the struggling, all yummy -- and then the fire is lit, and we go from terror and pain, to... barbeque. Yuck. But lots of folks like it, so... to each his own.]

I guess that's the point. To each his own. Lots of great stuff here, so, keep up the good work, Ralphus! :)

...The thing is, we have some pretty harsh images that are posted every day on this forum. Not just artworks, but vidcaps, too. If that branding pic is too hard, what about the bloody stills of Jane from Maleficarum? Not to mention images of her being burned at the stake? Where do you draw the line?

Well, I would not know where to draw the line for anyone other than me! It's a subjective judgment or opinion call. Like I already said "not everyone sees things in the same way. Not everyone has the same sensibilities."

So where would I draw the line. Well, I wouldn't really. People can post pics, and others can comment, like I did. Would I rather the more gruesome pics were text links. Yeah, I already said that. But it's not my call, I don't make the rules.

The Jane BATS pics, while I'm not a BATS fan, don't look all that gruesome to me. The bloody stills I'm not a fan off, but didn't bother me all that much. So the Fritz pic was not my cup of tea, and I said so. There are probably some who see the distinction, and others who don't.

SharedJoy has a good post. I'm pretty much in her camp.

-----

John Galt: Nice work once again, this time on the review and caps of Hollow Man. Unfortunately, it's not my thing. I must lack the imagination to get into the invisible abductor concept. In fact, a few months back, I was thinking about reviewing Rick's film, The Incubus, but the film didn't work for me and I abandoned the idea (I reviewed Trojan Horse instead). I can't imagine Hollow Man working any better for me.

-----

The other night, I had a chance to watch Attackers ATID-190, which I know MeetThePryz and I -- and possibly others -- had wanted to see. Regrettably, it was only a so-so movie. It had some nice moments but it's nothing exceptional.

-----

Lightweights vs. heavyweights: I'm pretty sure I fall into the lightweight category. For example, I don't understand why whipping scenes need to show blood. The gore only messes up a woman's appearance. In my world, if the victim looks credibly restrained and she can sell her reactions to each snap of the whip, that's good enough for me.

Actually, if we can find a way to get Ralphus to stop daydreaming about Maleficarum and focus, we may find there's a GIMP poll question in the lightweight/heavyweight discussion.

Thanks for the review and info.

Racing the Rain still up and running.

Bill K.

Re Hollow Man: I loved the scenes in question. (I've seen the "deleted scenes" version of the main rape scene; I had no idea there was a director's cut with even MORE.) An Invisible Man (done well) works perfectly for me -- any visible male body parts are a waste of screen space.

If there's a point to the movie BEYOND "an invisible man fools around with hot babes", the point was lost on me. :)

Speaking of nothing in particular, has anyone else seen the rape scene from the obscure movie Chaos?

There may be more than one scene, but the "main" scene (as far as I know) is a classic "starts perfectly for me, then quickly goes WAY WAY over my line" type of thing.

As the scene starts, Hot Girl is trying to escape from a gang of bad guys in the woods. One of the subordinate bad guys grabs her, drags her a bit, and drops her to the ground. The others are still some distance away, and she starts begging, please, I'll do anything you want -- ANYTHING! -- just get me out of here before Leader Guy gets me and kills me...

[VERY nice begging, even though for some reason, Hot Girl never opens her eyes through the entire scene.]

Cut to Leader Guy getting word that Hot Girl is caught, and just as Subordinate Guy is looking like he might take her up on her offer, Leader Guy shows up and the girl starts screaming.

Leader Guy proceeds to cut off her clothes, and then... pretty much destroys Hot Girl, very much along the lines of Fritz' picture below (which I'm sure is what made me think of this), BEFORE raping her right there in the woods.

I simply cannot describe how much I wish Leader Guy had done these two things in the reverse order. I pretty much HAVE to stop the clip once her clothes are off...

Anyway, just thought I'd share. :)

On the other side of the fence is our buddy Scribbler. We'll call him Mr. Lightweight. He doesn't care for extreme images, and who can blame him? Even though he was brought up with the classic work of John Blakemore, a man who pushed the envelope with bloody fishhooks through nipples and spiked dildos in pussies, he still prefers his damsels unsullied. No blood, no gore, and certainly nothing that would leave disfiguring marks on her skin. Seems reasonable to me. I think a lot of people feel the same. I would say nearly 100% of Brian's Pagers probably feel that way.

In a fantasy scenario, and that's what this entertainment is, in which side are you leaning toward? I know in boxing, a lightweight would never be pared against a heavyweight. Not a fair fight. But this is an extreme bondage discussion forum and anything goes. The first rule of GIMP Club is - you do not talk about GIMP Club.

Oh, but you DO have to post about it. In fact, you're REQUIRED to pick a side. It's the classic battle of Extreme Vs. Mild. For instance, you can whip her but you can't mark her up. Or you can be brutal and lash her damn near half to death. You get the picture?

Even though parts of the Heavyweight category are a bit extreme even for this sadistic midget, I think I'm leaning closer to that than the Lightweight category. I can't wait for Maleficarum, for instance. That's a film with harsh whipping, branding, roasting and burning at the stake, among other delights. And I can see good points on both sides. I think given a choice, most of us would end up right in the middle. That's why I'm not making that an option. There can be only one side or the other in terms of how you vote. So choose, and choose wisely.

GIMP POLL:
If you had to rate yourself as a GIMPer, where would you lean?
A: Heavyweight - Nearly anything goes in my fantasies
B. Lightweight - I don't really want her to see her hurt

There is no right or wrong answer here. And I expect a lot of people will have a difficult time deciding, but you have to pick one or the other. Who will win? Well, this election has just begun. And we WILL be keeping score. So get out the vote!

Bill K.

Girls In Merciless Peril But Only Mild Damage If Any! So GIMPBOMDIA. That's where I live :)

I have to say, on this board, the readers run the gamete from one extreme to the other. On one side, we have our friend Fritz praising his PKF custom Deadly Interrogation III, which John Marshall describes on his site as the most brutal movie he's ever done.

Good lord, man... somehow, you've managed to polarize the entire GIMP community. All 17 of us. I'll "weigh" in on this heavy vs. light debate later, but do you really think we will fall neatly into one of these two camps? As the apparent poster boy for the right... um, left... um, libertarian... oh yeah, "heavyweight GIMPer" faction, I'm not sure I can properly represent even my own team. If a lightweight scene turns me on, does that mean I'm not really, you know... oh god, how will I tell my parents? I know what you're after here, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you may think.

I suspect most readers will struggle with this question as there is no clear dividing line between red and blue. Blood? Marks on the body? Penetration? Death? Some "je ne sais quois" element that elevates a scene from light to heavy? For a lot of us, it won't be easy. That said, I still think it's a valid poll. As GIMPers we are already far to one side of some median which divides perverts from the Cleaver family, but can we be further distinguished? I suppose the responses to this poll will tell.

In the meantime, what the fuck is a 'gamete'? Sounds like something I should have memorized for a high school biology test. I've run the gamut from the woodpile to the back forty, and still can't find where I left that bloody chainsaw. Damn.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I love death-fetish, so killing the girl is a plus (there's always more where she came from!). I don't mind some blood (say, 2 or three shots or stabbings) as long as it doesn't get out of hand (and leave the damn breasts and nipples alone -- those are the best parts!).

If I HAVE to chose, I'll come down as a Heavyweight.

=================================

Yik Yakker: One theory is that the dry climate of the Middle East is not favorable to pig-farming - which requires large, continuous sources of water.

Pigs also eat what humans do, so they compete for those resources. If you take the milk from a cow, the calf won't have as much -- that **could** be the basis for the meat/milk restriction. I have no clue where the shell-fish and cloven hoof thing came from.

Kosher and halal have a lot of common points, but almost as many differences. Odd, considering they're both based out of Leviticus.

=================================

John Galt: Finally, an invisible man movie that features an invisible man doing what you would expect an invisible man to do--take advantage of women.

The "Invisible Maniac" did tear the blouses off two of his victims (a third was already nude). No rape, but one of the best drownings I've ever seen.

I saw "Hollow man" when it first came out, and boy, howdy, were those HOT scenes! The movie, as a movie, is pretty good too..

=================================

re "There's one image I could've gone my whole life without seeing

I didn't see that as Scribbler asking it not to be posted, just that it was off-putting to him. In other words, "nothing to get worked about; Strawberry Fields forever".

=================================

SharedJoy: Speaking of nothing in particular, has anyone else seen the rape scene from the obscure movie Chaos?

I have an edited version up at Dark Fetish Net (I took out the part where he cuts off her nipple and makes her eat it) -- but you have to be a member to see it.

I finally saw the other killing (via knife to snatch) but it was awful -- poorly lit, and you couldn;t see the girl's tits as they killed her. The first killing is definitely better.

Leader Guy proceeds to cut off her clothes, and then... pretty much destroys Hot Girl, very much along the lines of Fritz' picture below (which I'm sure is what made me think of this), BEFORE raping her right there in the woods.

She's not QUITE dead when he rapes her, but it would have been nicer if he started raping her BEFORE he kills her. ("Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" gets this part right.)

SharedJoy - I wrote a review on review of "Chaos" and recommended it - oddly, I personally did not care for it that much but thought if someone is looking for a gruesome, realistic rape scene then that one fills the bill - that one elicited an "ouch" upon viewing.

Scribbler - so this poll leads to "GIMPBOMDIA" - well, if not a sovereign nation at least a new entry to the Gimp dictionary - as a heavyweight will have to ponder where I live.

Stay well all

Interesting point! I really have to lean on heavyweight. I really do want to see her hurt, though I will put in the reservation that I allow this to live in my fantasies only. I have no real desire to truly hurt anything or anyone, but it's a nice mind game to play.

As for much of what goes on at the gimp site I don't have any real interest in. BATS, rape, etc. I already have too many hang ups to really wish to garner any more and so I don't try and realize the attraction of such fantasies.

I am really into flogging and caning. Preferably judicially ordained ones. I really like that and movies that have those scenes in them were a real buzz for me, though I did like the Story of O if only for the delicious Corrinne Clery and that sweaty scene in the bedroom when that clutz sees her whipped and broken, tied and naked and...runs away!!! Shit what would I have given to stand astride the delicious Miss Clery that day, oh yes!!

Other films I have loved I have touched on in the past, so I wont bore anyone with those again, but it is sad isn't it, that so many of the films we have seen and loved seem to be things of the past. Where are the great torture scenes and floggings that made the cinema screens flicker and the hearts of little shits like me race. Perhaps the audiences of today are too sophisticated... Don't talk to me about sophistication, I've been to Leeds!

If all this sounds too consensual for your tastes, consider the pyschological torment rather than the physical next time. Most Gimp porn appeals only to men because the physicial is the focus. As a female, I identify with the victim, and if I can find something besides pain and terror, it's a good movie.

Consider Renee Pornero in the recently reviewed "SExitus Interrutus". The dripping water scene is my favorite. Hours upon hours of psychological anguish only to be foiled by her own lust - fabulous!

There are no limits on psychological damage and therefore that's where the fantasy should lie.

I understand why Ralphus chose to structure the poll this way but, as others have pointed out, it is much more complicated than that.

Friedrich, Baron von Folter

"Don't want to see her hurt"?!?

By *THAT* definition, I'd be a heavyweight. "Hurt" can just mean pain, which I'm all in favor of. :)

I'd rather have had more options:

1) Must be consensual. (Why are you reading this board?)
2) Nonconsensual, but no pain.
3) Pain, but no marks.
4) Light marks OK.
5) Heavy marks OK.
6) Minor blood OK.
7) Extreme blood/gore OK.

On this scale, I'm a 4, where we were originally defining "heavyweight" at 6 or 7.

GIMPBOMDIA. Yeah, that sounds like my neighborhood... :)

[It's sad that we live in a society where disclaimers like the following are needed, but it should be reinforced that we are talking about FANTASY material, acted out only in fiction by paid actors, or in person with a willing partner PRETENDING to be unwilling for the sake of the fantasy. Anyone who can't draw this line, shouldn't be here.]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/263970007/railroaded_by_danakuma-d4d5sk7.jpg

Now we just need a Locomotive and a Top-Hatted, Handlebar-Mustached Villain...

B for me, there are more ways than beating a women to make it good, words, humiliation, embarassment etc all work also.

I suspect that answers in this poll will largely correlate to the earlier rape vs. torture question.

Joe X

I must say your images have full butts and strong thighs as a matter of fact.

Heavyweight Bill K.

I'm not squeamish about torture scenarios such as whippings if they're done right. Indeed, I have criticized J.J., Dan Hawke and others for not putting enough intensity into their whipping scenes.

But the real erotic charge for me comes from seeing a woman who is helpless and struggling in a terrible situation, rather than in watching overly realistic depictions of violence. Some punishing slaps to the face, belly shots and other forms of violence do the trick for me. But burning someone's skin and other more extreme tortures do not work.

John Galt's review of Don't Go in the House captured the distinction for me. I'm sure I would enjoy the scenes of the heroine struggling as she is helpless and realizes what is going to happen to her. But the actual depiction of her body burning to a crisp would do nothing for me.

Not to change course or to divert to another issue the vid caps of Don't Go in the House brings up another important element for me. It WUB. That's Wake Up Bound. The scene where the florist wakes up to see herself bound to the ceiling naked and her reaction is a big component for me. But like posted before the crispy body does nothing for me.

Heavyweights - 8
Lightweights - 6

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a very close race. Be sure and get the vote out if you haven't yet. Posting your opinion can make a difference in the outcome.

To answer those who thought it was rather simplistic to divide the choices into only 2 categories, that was done for a reason. Because honestly, if there were a third option, it would likely be 14-0 in favor of "in the middle". I think we're ALL in the middle, or darn near close to all of us. We all have various aspects of the fetish that turn us on, and turn us off. That was why I phrased the question as "which way you LEAN toward". That opens it up to having you explain the reasons why you feel the way the do. I really like to hear what makes people tick.

As a follow-up, we should poll the ones who rated themselves as Lightweights and see if they're Rape Guys (or ladies) as opposed to Torture Guys. My guess is that most Torture Guys would fall into the Heavyweight class. But that's another poll for another day.

----------------

Fritz wrote:

In the meantime, what the fuck is a 'gamete'?

Ha! That's what happens when you run your text through spell check and it gives you the wrong option and you accidentally click on it. Obviously, I meant to say "gamut". And now that you caught me on it and posted about it, I'll have to leave the wrong word in my post instead of correcting it. Damn you.

It's been awhile since I posted, but I wanted to give my choice in this latest poll.

I would have to go with Lightweight for myself, because although I'm all in favor of light pain and humiliation, I find no enjoyment in the girls death! I'm all in favor for things such as breathplay, light shocking, foot torture etc.

But as far as major physical torture or death, I'm not for that at all.

On that basis, I would have to say that I am a LIGHTWEIGHT, in that I'm primarily interested in how the victim looks, not how she feels. That is to say, I don't really get off on the pain/injury/maiming as much as the actress' reaction to whatever situation she's in, as long as she's convincing, she's hot, she's in peril and she is losing some clothing in the process. Sweat and tears thrill me more than blood.

But even this stance is problematical. For example, I love Jane von Detlefson's work. (Certainly I'm not alone in that). But she often sheds blood in her roles, as she does in Maleficarum. Still, as long as she's not a bloody mess, I can deal with it. I just don't want to see the girl disfigured or butchered. That's the kind of thing that takes away the erotic aspects of the scene, at least for me. It's one of the (many) problems I had with Blitzkrieg. Once the "leading lady" got her face rifle-butted, it was not longer enjoyable. And while the rape of Camille Keaton in ISOYG was incredible, the battered state they left her in was not to my liking.

But then you have Raquel Merono in Dagon, who is cut in numerous areas of her body in order to draw blood that would lure the monster to her...but I didn't mind that at all because she was still hot, naked and convincing. Maybe it's because they left her face alone, I don't know. But that would make me a HEAVYWEIGHT on the SharedJoy Scale.

Oh, I'm so confused...I'm having an identity crisis.

Good thing it's all fantasy. ;)

-------

I tend to shy away from movies that would get a 7 on the SharedJoy Scale. But I saw one from Japan named Boy Eats Schoolgirl that so sickened me I decided not to review it. Among other things, it featured scat, vomit and a disemboweling (all involving young cute women). I'm pleased to say that the movie is out of print.

-------

John Galt In case I forgot, thanks for the nifty review of Hollow Man and once again, valuable information about purchasing the "right" version.

Following what Nia said about psychological damage - and I'm not questioning the physical pain inflicted upon Rhona Mitra from being raped - I thought the aftermath scene, with Rhona sobbing on the bed, only slightly covered by her robe, was really hot. That vulnerability and sense of bewilderment, shock really shone through. I mean, can you imagine? "Hello, Mom? I'm really in bad shape, I just got raped by an invisible man!" It's gotta freak you out.

Sort of like the girl who got raped by a tree in Evil Dead.

-------

Homepage URL: I know we've talked about Girl in the Dragon Tattoo on the board in the past. This article provides some interesting insights on the casting.

It remains to be seen whether Fincher will have as much as or more nudity than the original, and how well he will handle the rape scene. But there's little question in my mind that casting a "name" actress would have insured less or no nudity and a greatly watered down rape scene. I like Scarlett Johansson but she would not have done the movie the way it was originally done. She has never done anything like that. Back in the day, Angelina Jolie might have done it properly, but I can't think of any other American actress who would even consider doing the rape scene right.

I think Fincher made a good choice by casting a relative unknown. Now it just remains to be seen whether he does the few but significant GIMP aspects of the story any justice. I am not optimistic. (Which I'm sure comes as no surprise to regular readers of my posts.)

Still, I read quotes from a Vogue interview in which Fincher did this:

Then he double-clicks on something and realizes that it is a rape scene and hits the stop button. "I'm not going to show you that," he says. "That's too heavy to drop anybody into. You gotta get there!"

And the interviewer says this:

The scene is agonizing to watch as it slowly becomes apparent that he is going to sodomize her. Nothing is left to the imagination.

And then we get this:

"I saw this not as a blockbuster that appeals to everyone," says Fincher. "I saw this as an interesting, specific, pervy franchise. The only chance for something like Dragon Tattoo to be made in all of its perversions is to do it big."

So who knows? All of that sounds very encouraging. Especially the pervy franchise part.

I can accept a lightweight scenario if there is tight AOH bondage of a hottie in revealing clothing but it doesnt really do it for me unless the hottie is tortured in some way. I'm not an extreme heavyweight though, in that I dont like death, more than some scars of blood, or mutilation.

	Lightweight	Heavyweight
Blood	Dry as a bone	Pour it on
Wounds and marks	No thanks	Scar her for life
Permanent Damage	Not even a scratch	Skin her alive
Death	What a waste	Waste her
Consensual	No problem	You're kidding, right?
Favorite term	B & D	Torture Porn
Favorite film	Story of O	Bloodsucking Freaks
Favorite producer	Kink	PKF
Favorite toy	Clothespins	Chain saw
Foreplay	Light spanking	Nipple-ectomy
Ideal partner	Pony girl	Captured terrorist
Term for partner	Slave	Victim
Restraints	Tied to bed	Nailed to cross
The next day	Breakfast & Blow job	Body disposal

I'm sure there are more, but that should be enough to assist those who are sitting on the fence. Of course, if you chose seven from each column, you're still boned. And that's why this isn't as straightforward as some short people would have us believe. Then again, in a world where all Republicans support the same principles and all Democrats agree on theirs, where all men like football and all women like pink, and where all dogs slobber and all cats puke, we in the GIMP community should be able to establish our own clear-cut boundaries.

As for me, I've already been labeled, apparently being among the more extreme of my kind. And who am I to deny that? Still, I don't believe I'm as one-dimensional as claimed. Granted, I do lean toward all the choices in the heavyweight column, but there are critical GIMP elements which have little to do with the degree of violence inflicted - and these may affect our preferences. For instance, what about nudity? Graphic sex? Bondage? Whether or not these are present affects a scene's appeal for many of us, and may well trump the actual level of peril.

Personally, I get little pleasure from a GIMP film that has no storyline. If the violence is completely random or presented with no context, even the most extreme scenes will disappoint me. In the same way, I'd much rather see a naked and bound damsel endure relatively light punishment than see a clothed, unrestrained victim ripped to pieces.

Like I said, it's not that easy to force us into those pigeon holes.

And in case I have not already been counted, make sure you add me to Team Heavy.

Kevin wrote:

I would have to go with Lightweight for myself, because although I'm all in favor of light pain and humiliation, I find no enjoyment in the girls death! I'm all in favor for things such as breathplay, light shocking, foot torture etc.

It sounds like you are indeed a Lightweight. However, I would add that death is not a necessary criterion for a Heavyweight fantasy. In fact, there exists a whole slew of strange necro people who enjoy seeing women quickly shot, strangled, or otherwise dispatched... with no nudity, rape, bondage or torture. Where's the fun in that? It's also rumored that some fetishists (many believe they live in an isolated village in Belgium) think the fun starts after the victim is already dead. Oh the humanity! Where will it all end?

YikYakker wrote:

But then you have Raquel Merono in Dagon, who is cut in numerous areas of her body in order to draw blood that would lure the monster to her...but I didn't mind that at all because she was still hot, naked and convincing. Maybe it's because they left her face alone, I don't know.

Any self-professed Lightweight GIMPer who enjoys Raquel's demise in Dagon is more than a little conflicted. First she's tortured almost to death, then she's suspended naked over a pit, and then... well, I don't want to spoil the ending. Oh what the hell... by the time that scene ends, all that's left of Raquel is a pair of hands! You need a face? It's gone, dude, just like the rest of her.

And YikYakker also wrote:

Oh, I'm so confused...I'm having an identity crisis.

Join the club, buddy.

So here is the quick synopsis of "A Serbian Film". A retired Male Porn star is lured back into the business to do an "arty porn" movie. He doesn't know what it's about, but he's offered big money to do it so he does. The scenes he has to do get weirder and weirder culminating in him being drugged up on animal viagra and he eventually commits murder many times over.

A lot of crazy shit happens in this movie, but I want to focus on two GIMP scenes. In one, a woman is brought in naked and handcuffed spreadeagle face down on a bed. Our "Hero" then starts fucking her from behind and he is goaded into hitting her, which he does, violently bruising her back and ass, then he is handed a machete which he uses to more or less behead her while fucking her. It is then implied that her death causes her vagina to clench up, at least I think that was implied.

The next GIMP scene: a woman is naked, on her knees with her arms tied overhead. She has had all of her teeth removed by pliers (not shown, just the bloody aftermath). A Naked man (not our hero) enters and begins to fuck her bloody mouth. While doing so he pinches her nostrils shut, thereby effectively strangling her.

Neither of these scenes did I find particularly erotic, though a naked spreadeagle is always nice to see. But as I said in the beginning, this movie separates the "Heavies" from the "lightweights". It's one of those movies that have to be seen to be believed. Kind of like how "Martyrs" was a few years ago. I probably won't watch it again, but I can say now that I have. Anyone else out there seen it yet?

I'm a Lightweight, though I'd redefine that as "I don't really want to see her permanently damaged." I'm fine with lots of pain and red stripes and the threat of death or mutilation, but I've always been one to take care of my toys. No army men and magnifying glasses in the sun for me. Hmmm...a magnifying glass and a girl staked out in the sun--now that's a torture I've never seen. ;-)

All of the Stormrider art that we've seen is fine with me. As long as I can visualize the hanging girl as not quite dead and her rescue imminent, I'm good.

I also prefer my victims to stay pretty, and I like to see their expressions. Some of the stuff I've seen from Insex involved too much distortion of the model's face for me to find it engaging. I usually find gags to be a negative since they hide a lot of expression.

Anybody who's visited my web site could guess that my particular requirement is for bondage. Ropes, chains, stocks, or other infernal restraints are all good. The best rape scene ever filmed with an unrestrained victim? Yawn. Add some rope and now we're talking!

Just to throw out a peace offering to the heavyweights out there, I recently came across a new comic book series with the title "Gore." It's from GG Studios, which is an Italian company, but the book is in English. Four issues out as of August 2011, with a weird (to me) mix of good girl art, bondage, and body parts being sliced off.

Ralphus wrote: GIMP POLL:
If you had to rate yourself as a GIMPer, where would you lean?
A: Heavyweight - Nearly anything goes in my fantasies
B. Lightweight - I don't really want to see her hurt

Even after Fritz's handy matrix, I still reside firmly in the heavyweight corner, but only in fantasy. In Real Life, I can't stand the sight of blood, mine or anyone else's. So much for my sainted mother's hope that I would become a doctor (sigh).

As for the poll, I think I fit in with many others' opinion in saying that I don't quite fit either side, although when it comes to GIMPage itself, I'd be more on the heavy side. However, for me it's all about the way something is presented. Rick has had some fairly gruesome scenes in his movies, but I generally like them because he's coming from our perspective. On the other hand, in a drama where we are empathizing with a particular character, something as relatively mild as a slap might feel transgressively over the top.

Not me. None of those things appeal to me, but why not let those who get off on them enjoy them. We're hardly a good group to say "Your fetish is icky!".

From your previous posts, I don't think you meant it like that. But it came off kind of snobby.

=======================================

John Galt: he is going to sodomize her. Nothing is left to the imagination.

I was rather surprised to find that Jennifer Connelly did a scene where she is forced (by economics more than force) to do a sex scene with another girl ("ass-to-ass with a double-headed dildo") in "Requiem for a Dream". There's no bondage but it's definitely non-consensual.

=======================================

bleumune: So much for my sainted mother's hope that I would become a doctor

Do you know what they call a lawyer? A nice Jewish boy who can't stand the sight of blood. (When I was growing up, **every** Jewish boy was expected to be a doctor or a lawyer...)

As to Fritz's matrix: I (as I asumme many others) would have to chose some from coluum A and some from coluum B. More of my choices would be from coluum B.

Friedrich, Baron von Folter

With a few exceptions, I generally do not review movies that a) I did not enjoy, and/or b) are no longer available for folks to obtain. I will review a movie that meets criterion a) if it is disgusting, disappointing or poorly done and I want to warn everyone about it. It was on that basis (disgusting) that I was considering doing a write-up of Boy Eats Schoolgirl.

I was somewhat conflicted for the reason you mentioned - just because I didn't like it doesn't mean no one else will. I wanted to warn folks that although it contained some GIMP elements, those here who don't like gory, putrid stuff will probably want to avoid it. I was prepared to include in my post a link to a favorable review (the one that led me to watch the movie) for the sake of balance.

That all became moot when Asian Cult Cinema - to best of my knowledge the only source for the DVD - ran out of copies and dropped it from their catalog. I was pleased, not because the material would be denied to others, but because I no longer had the burden of making a decision about whether to review it or not. In effect, the decision was made for me under criterion b).

That's what I meant to say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

BTW, I've tried to find that favorable review, but I've lost the link and a Google search turned up nothing. It was in a blog on a site about extreme movies.

-------

Fritz wrote: Any self-professed Lightweight GIMPer who enjoys Raquel's demise in Dagon is more than a little conflicted.

Ain't it the truth. This scene falls under the category of "I-liked-it-up-until-they..." that emerged in our discussion about BATS.

Dagon is a gripping movie that builds to a climax with the suspension over the monster pit scene. I was hoping that Raquel Merono's character would (eventually) be rescued - after we'd had a nice long opportunity to see her struggling, naked, and in peril.

*spoiler ahead* When he brought her up the first time, she was covered in slime and begged him not to save her. That took a little bit of the sting out of seeing what remained of her the second time he raised her. Still didn't like it though. *end of spoiler*

I'm not leaning, I'm tottering.

-------

We had a poster here once that was probably an extreme Lightweight. He was upset about some of the things we talked about and the movies we reviewed. It was clear that he preferred vanilla bondage.

"Enough snuff!" he roared in his post. "What's wrong with a little bit of pinching or tickling?" (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to look it up on Search the GIMP). I posted a reply, something to the effect that perhaps he had stumbled onto the wrong site.

And no, his moniker was not Bondage Dave, although it could have been him using a pseudonym.

-------

John Galt: Thanks for that link to the article about David Fincher and Mara Rooney. Notwithstanding her somewhat gaunt, model-like look, I think Mara is very attractive - almost like my ideal GIMPette with her ebony hair and blue eyes.

If they're making her look grotesque, I probably won't see the movie. But I will read this article when I get the chance.

That phrase, pervy franchise is intriguing, although I'm wondering if he meant to say pervy enterprise.

Stay well all

	Lightweight	Me	Heavyweight
Blood	Dry as a bone	Not too much	Pour it on
Wounds and marks	No thanks	Not too much	Scar her for life
Permanent Damage	Not even a scratch	Not too much	Skin her alive
Death	What a waste	Some live for a day; some for a month	Waste her
Consensual	No problem	NEVER!	You're kidding, right?
Favorite term	B & D	Belly punch; garrote	Torture Porn
Favorite film	Story of O	Mainstream: Fatal Pulse; Fetish: Feathered Death and Crazy Family	Bloodsucking Freaks
Favorite producer	Kink	PKF!!! (EWP for photosets)	PKF
Favorite toy	Clothespins	Garrote	Chain saw
Foreplay	Light spanking	Rape	Nipple-ectomy
Ideal partner	Pony girl	Kidnapped Coed	Captured terrorist
Term for partner	Slave	Victim	Victim
Restraints	Tied to bed	Tied to X-Frame	Nailed to cross
The next day	Breakfast & Blow job	Find more victims	Body disposal
Rape her?	Fondle her at most	4 or 5 guys at her mouth and pussy; cum-shots to the face; relatives (mothers and daughters or sisters) forced to rape each other	All the holes, all time

So, I'm more of a Heavyweight than a Lightweight.  But you all knew that.

	Lightweight	YikYakker	Heavyweight
Blood	Dry as a bone	Maybe a little where the whip strikes	Pour it on
Wounds and marks	No thanks	Whip stripes	Scar her for life
Permanent Damage	Not even a scratch	Branded butt	Skin her alive
Death	What a waste	Not if she does what she's told	Waste her
Consensual	No problem	No way	You're kidding, right?
Favorite term	B & D	Dungeon	Torture Porn
Favorite film	Story of O	TBD after Halloween	Bloodsucking Freaks
Favorite producer	Kink	Jess Franco (at his best)	PKF
Favorite toy	Clothespins	Cat o'nine	Chain saw
Foreplay	Light spanking	Clothes-ripping; groping	Nipple-ectomy
Ideal partner	Pony girl	Smart-ass heiress	Captured terrorist
Term for partner	Slave	Smart-ass bitch	Victim
Restraints	Tied to bed	Chained AOH or racked	Nailed to cross
The next day	Breakfast & Blow job	still some vacant dungeon cells to fill	Body disposal
Rape her?	Fondle her at most	When she's conscious	All the holes, all time

Well, I guess I'm leaning towards Heavyweight...today.

A note on Cows Pigs etc. I read this book at least 30 years ago. All I would add is the author makes the point that economic penalties would not have had enough strength which is why the ban on pork became a religious taboo. One fact he uses to back up his argument is that you can get become seriously diseased from eating undercooked beef as well but there is no such ban on cattle.

Foot fetish: A physiological explanation for foot fetish is that the area of the brain that receives neural stimulation from the feet is smack up against the one that receives stimulation from the genitalia.

I'm starting to dig the ponytail look, for this reason: In whipping scenarios, when you want to expose her back, you can flip her hair over to the front without covering up her breasts (at least, not both of them. These things are important, dammit!

-------

John Galt: While you're asleep, do elves come out and put together your reviews and caps for you? (That's a reference to an old Grimm's tale, in case anyone out there thinks I'm nuts).

But seriously, thanks for quickly assembling an excellent review of the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Nice detailed scene descriptions and sharp caps too.

That last picture definitely depicts a heavyweight situation.

But ever since you used the phrase "punk goth girl" I can't expunge from my brain the tune "Punk Rock Girl" by the Dead Milkmen. Egads.

BTW I made the mistake of calling the leading lady of the remake Mara Rooney, when in fact her name is Rooney Mara. I think she flipped her first name and last name around to mess with our minds.

Just like Fox Megan did.

-------

Flintstone wrote: ...in my fantasy, I also have a dungeon that only I know about.

You and me both, buddy.

-------

esso wrote: A physiological explanation for foot fetish is that the area of the brain that receives neural stimulation from the feet is smack up against the one that receives stimulation from the genitalia.

Well, that certainly adds weight to the argument, "But I was born this way!"

-------

Review coming up in a later post, folks. Stay tuned...

Heavyweights - 12
Lightweights - 11

This excludes YikYakker, the wishy-washy one who can't come up with a definitive answer. Depending on what final answer he decides upon, we're either tied 12-12 or else the Heavyweights are up by 2. Either way, this has been a very close poll.

BTW, I want to clarify, leaning towards the Heavyweight category does not necessarily mean you want to see the girl killed, only that your fantasies are not limited to where the girl may get marked up or hurt. You don't have to have the Death Fetish to be a Heavyweight.

---------------

Anybody else wondering how the Maleficarum screening went with the execs on Wednesday? We're waiting to hear if they accepted the movie or banned it from playing in the theatre for the public. No word from Margot or Jane so far. Hmmmm....

---------------

John Galt: It does amaze me how prolific you are when it comes to reviewing movies. It reminded me to check back in 2008 when you won your Ralphus Award for Most Prolific New Reviewer that you reviewed 58 movies and video clips in just over 4 months. I guess you're trying to break your own record?

The link for your latest is in my Homepage URL above.

---------------

Regarding the movie and also the Hollywood remake starring Rooney Mara, maybe I just don't get the appeal or understand the fuss. Okay, maybe it is a good movie and maybe the remake will be even better, or worse. The bottom line is it's already ruined from the start. Now I'll admit, the lead actress, Rooney Mara, is very attractive IN REAL LIFE. However, in the film, she's going to look like THIS. Guys, I couldn't care less about a rape scene if the victim is a freakgirl. And make no mistake, we have a major freakgirl thing going on. You might as well shave Rooney Mara's head like in that other film we discussed earlier. Are we that desperate for GIMP entertainment that we have to settle for the victim who looks like she belongs in a punk band?

I say NO! And feel free to disagree with me, but just remember I'm always right.

* * * * *

Ralphus: The character Lisbeth Salander has a definite look, and the reasons for it are carefully developed and revealed in the novels. She is absolutely not a girly girl and making her anything less than a pierced and tattooed goth punk "girl" would have been wrong. She is described as a young woman, but looking much more youthful--in fact, looking underage. My interpretation is that she is purposely trying to make herself unattractive because she has suffered at the hands of men who desired her and abused her as a child and a teen. Personally, I would resent it if they tried to soften her image, but I can sympathize with your preference to see her look prettier. I guess I am invested enough in the character that I will accept what she looks like during the rape scene.

I'm still not a fan of piercings or tattoos. However, I did note that Noomi Rapace's Lisbeth did not have pierced nipples, but Rooney Mara's Lisbeth does. That's a little edgier, so maybe the movie's GIMP parts will be edgier as well.

And yes, I am also wondering about the results of the Maleficarum screening, and I posted as much earlier in the week. I guess you haven't gotten any back-channel e-mails giving you the inside scoop, huh? Well, hopefully Jane or Margot will enlighten us all soon.

Given the fact that my fantasy includes a dungeon with whips, a torture rack and a branding iron (in the shape of a double-Y, heh-heh), I would have to conclude that I am indeed a heavyweight, so that is my official vote.

As a consolation prize to all you lightweights out there, I offer the following, long-overdue GIMP review.

-------

Kylie Jo Overhead

Powershotz

Clip Length: 20 minutes

Back in January of this year Steve Power introduced us to one of his up-and-cumming young ladies, Kylie Jo. I was captivated by her and picked out this work to, um, get to know her better.

Then I fell so far behind in my reviews that by the time I got to this one, the product had already disappeared from the Powershotz catalog. However, her personal Powershotz portfolio includes 10 clips that are still available. So please consider this as not just a review of a particular clip, but also as a preview of the actress.

No plot here, the whole purpose is to showcase Kylie Jo, completely naked in a continuous AOH position, while being tormented and abused by the Masked Man. She is not gagged. She is subjected to spanking, whipping, groping of her tits and pussy, and verbal abuse. The Masked Man cups his hand over her mouth and pushes her head backwards.

The "Masked Man" likes what he sees and feels...

He makes her turn in place while standing on her toes, and then makes her repeat the task after fastening two thin leather belts around her legs, one just above her knees and one around her ankles. Pretty tough to do.

Kylie Jo is not having fun

He then takes the rope that holds her wrist straps to the ceiling, connects it to the wall behind him, and pulls Kylie Jo up on her toes. This is followed by a whipping session, during which Kylie Jo again must turn in place so that the whipper doesn't miss any spots.

A tug on the rope, a flick of the wrist...

The camera lingers on Kylie Jo, leering at every inch of her from top to bottom and at a variety of angles. She begins to show weariness and pleads, "Please let me down." It's almost a question, as if she had doubts.

"What are you going to do for me?"

"Please, I'll do anything you want."

"Hmm...no, I need more specifics. What specifically are you going to do for me if I let you down?"

Long pause.

"Do you remember how you got out of the gag?" he says, apparently alluding to a previous episode. "You had to beg me for something, what was it?"

Another pause, and then she says, "Cock."

"That's right, you had to suck my cock. So what are you going to do for me if I let you down?"

After more taunting and coaching and hesitation, she resigns herself to what he wants her to say.